Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
Everything Everywhere All at Once is one of those rare films where I can't think of the appropriate words to describe it. It's a thrilling and emotional spectacle brimming with unique visuals and is a true cinematic rollercoaster.
The narrative is part family drama, and part mind bending sci-fi. The family drama is well crafted and effortless to become invested in. It's gives the characters room to breathe whilst simultaneously wasting little time before shit goes off the rails. When I say mind bending, that's exactly what it sounds like. The sci-fi element is just bonkers. The alternative universes that are shown off are memorable and colourful, and the action set pieces are joyous to behold. There's some solid martial arts on display, and multiple scenarios where you can safely say "well I've never seen that in a film before".
Towering above all of the batshit insane fun however, is the very human centre that EEAAO carries with it. The last 40 minutes or so get unashamedly existential, and accurately convey the feeling of how easy it is to feel like a failure, or to feel alone and unheard in a bustling universe. It's hard hitting but is wholesome as hell (never thought a silent and subtitled conversation between two rocks would hit me in the feels but here we are)
Michelle Yeoh is wonderful and delivers a career best performance. Stephanie Hsu is also great and it's bloody lovely to see Ke Huy Quan back with a vengeance. Jamie Lee Curtis remains easy to love, even as a pain in the arse, pro wrestling tax auditer.
The Daniels have delivered and then some in their follow up effort to the equally weird Swiss Army Man and truly deserve all the praise coming their way.
Everything Everywhere All at Once is a phenomenal experience. I can't imagine anything will beat it for my personal best film of 2022. It's a bonafide, head fucking masterpiece.
The narrative is part family drama, and part mind bending sci-fi. The family drama is well crafted and effortless to become invested in. It's gives the characters room to breathe whilst simultaneously wasting little time before shit goes off the rails. When I say mind bending, that's exactly what it sounds like. The sci-fi element is just bonkers. The alternative universes that are shown off are memorable and colourful, and the action set pieces are joyous to behold. There's some solid martial arts on display, and multiple scenarios where you can safely say "well I've never seen that in a film before".
Towering above all of the batshit insane fun however, is the very human centre that EEAAO carries with it. The last 40 minutes or so get unashamedly existential, and accurately convey the feeling of how easy it is to feel like a failure, or to feel alone and unheard in a bustling universe. It's hard hitting but is wholesome as hell (never thought a silent and subtitled conversation between two rocks would hit me in the feels but here we are)
Michelle Yeoh is wonderful and delivers a career best performance. Stephanie Hsu is also great and it's bloody lovely to see Ke Huy Quan back with a vengeance. Jamie Lee Curtis remains easy to love, even as a pain in the arse, pro wrestling tax auditer.
The Daniels have delivered and then some in their follow up effort to the equally weird Swiss Army Man and truly deserve all the praise coming their way.
Everything Everywhere All at Once is a phenomenal experience. I can't imagine anything will beat it for my personal best film of 2022. It's a bonafide, head fucking masterpiece.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a dark and silent night, a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), treads carefully through the streets of London unaware of the direction her life is about to take. As an attractive young lady, sneaking out of her home after curfew is filled with peril, especially when she is confronted by a gang of local thugs who happen to work for the government. Despite her protests, the men set up Evey only to be confronted by a masked figure.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Michael’s back, back again
Happy Halloween everyone! What better way to celebrate than with my review of the latest in the Halloween franchise?
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
40 years after John Carpenter’s iconic horror film, we are greeted with a brand new instalment in Michael Myers’ saga. It feels like a really special moment for horror fans, as we reflect on the original decades later. The opening credits pay homage to the 1978 and provide some nostalgia for long time fans by using the same text and soundtrack that audiences would’ve seen on the big screen back then. This was a great stylistic choice as it really gets you feeling pumped for what’s to come.
The film opens with Myers in a high security facility, where two true crime podcasters attempt to communicate with him in order to learn more about him and the murders he committed. Unsurprisingly, Michael refuses to say anything, providing a seriously uncomfortable moment for the audience. Throughout the film, we don’t see or hear him, and shots of him without the mask are always the back of his head. I would have been very disappointed if they’d decided to show his face throughout, as this sense of facelessness is something that’s always scared me about him. He’s a silent killer, never jumping out and screaming, but hiding in the shadows waiting to strike at any point. Most interactions with Myers are tense, uncomfortable and nail biting. His presence alone has that effect on you.
As ever, it was a joy to see Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her role as original Myers’ victim, Laurie Strode. Throughout the film, Strode’s paranoia is hard to brush off, and actually makes you feel more on edge. It was great seeing how she’d aged, yet refused to move on, and Curtis really brought her to life once again. She was the highlight of the film for me, as she was far from a cowering victim, and someone who wanted Myers dead for good. Having said that, you can tell how much she still fears him and how she’s suffering with long-term PTSD after almost being murdered. Let’s face it, anyone would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, I did find some of the acting a bit cringeworthy and it took away from the overall experience. I know that horror films have a bit of a reputation for terrible acting and dialogue, but I felt like such an important franchise deserved better than that. In my screening there were a few laugh out loud moments, and I don’t think all of them were intentional. One thing I will say is that child actor Jibrail Nantambu is one to watch because he was such a character and brought some genuine humour to the scenes he was in. I hope he goes far. Michael’s handler Dr. Ranbir Sartain is also an interesting character that I won’t say much about, but his development throughout is particularly great.
Admittedly I would’ve preferred less focus on teenagers, families and their dramas, and more on Michael and the actual kills. The film was meant to be about him and Laurie, after all. Whilst I was mostly satisfied by the brutality and some really gruesome moments, I felt it had been hyped up to the point where I expected more. Is that bad? Have I just become desensitised to bloody moments? I’m not quite sure. Having said that, one scene in particular did have me on the edge of my seat so it was still able to provide that adrenaline rush despite all its flaws. I’m still really bloody scared of Michael Myers.
Overall, Halloween is certainly watchable and a great visit to the cinema, especially this evening. Whilst I’m not the world’s biggest Halloween fan and there are certain films in the franchise I haven’t even seen, I still enjoyed this and understood what was going on. If you’re a big horror fan, particularly of the classics, give this a go. It might give you some welcome nostalgia and scares, and maybe that’s enough.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/31/halloween-2018-michaels-back-back-again/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 7, 2020)
The third entry in the Scream franchise is a mixed bag to say the least. It takes everything that made the first two so enjoyable, and throws more of it at the audience, but unfortunately it just doesn't land as well as one would hope.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
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.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Sherlock, Jr. (1924) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
I have seen and very much enjoyed the work of Buster Keaton in the past, most notably The General, which knocked me sideways by how inventive and genuinely funny it was. My main movie love for the silent era is Charlie Chaplin, and much like it is possible to like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones but only truly love one, Keaton will always be second best for me. But what a second best. Genius is an overused word, of course, but pioneer says it better anyway. The sheer volume of invention per minute is magnificent – from the technical editing techniques that were created just for this film, to the forms of visual comedy that broke the mould and raised the bar in every scene.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Most memorable is the cinema scene where Keaton’s love sick amateur sleuth tries to hide by actually entering the screen – a trick paid homage to in many movies since, including Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo. It is astonishing to think he not only thought of doing this in 1924, but also pulled it off with jaw-dropping special effects for the time. It’s also really funny. You don’t have to force a laugh because you feel you should, it is still clever and amusing almost 100 years later. In fact, the entire 46 minute print still looks so good it is hard to believe it is that old in any way. Surely one of a handful of half length films from the period that will always be watched for what they are and not just museum pieces.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Wings (1927) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Verdict: Beautiful Portray of Love & War
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
Story: Wings starts as two young men Jack Powell (Rogers) and David Armstrong (Arlen) both sign up to become fighter pilots in the First World War, they are from different backgrounds, with Jack working with his hands, which has seen him get the attention of Mary Preston (Bow) and David being rich, with the pair both seeking the attention of Sylvia Lewis (Ralston).
What starts out in rivalry soon becomes friendship between the two men as through their training, they learn they need to be on the same side and want the same thing from their time in the service. They are followed by Mary who has taken up a job where she delivers medical supplies to troops, all while her love for Jack continues to grow.
Thoughts on Wings
Characters – Mary Preston has worked with Jack Powell for years, they work on cars and her love for Jack is clear, she doesn’t get the attention she desires of him though, with the men at war, she uses her driving skills to deliver medical supplies, hoping to find Jack too, which sees her needing to find a way to act more lady like for the era. Jack Powell is from the working class bracket of people, he has always been great with cars and mechanics, which sees him sign up for the air force during world war 1, he will do what he can get impress the rich Sylvia to whom he loves and after years of rivalry with David, they will become friends. David Armstrong has come from a rich family, he is set to be marrying Sylvia one day if the families have their say, he sees Jack as a rival, until they fight side by side in the skies. Sylvia is the woman that both men are fighting for the attention of, they both see her as the perfect woman and will go to lengths to impress her.
Performances – This being a silent movie, all the work from the actors in the film comes from face expressions and movements, which they are all fantastic with, Clara Bow shows the pain of being in love with somebody who doesn’t want you, while Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen show the rivalry men can have when it comes to women.
Story – The story here follows two men from different backgrounds, one rich one working class, that are both fighting for the same woman, who join the air force to impress, where they become friends and learn the horrors of war. This is a story that is one that shows that love can be something people will always do crazy things for, it shows how the war bought enemies together and for a movie made in 1927, showed us a strong female character willing to go into war, unlike many films for years to come. Being a silent movie, we do get the expression and action doing a lot of the storytelling around the dialogue which is interesting because it keeps away a lot of unnecessary dialogue certain war films turn too.
Romance/War – The romance in this film shows how people will do strange things for love, you might not always see it right under your nose either, with the war being the main location that our characters all go to impress, the dog fight scenes are brilliant to watch, with the use of music making a big impact on the quality too.
Settings – The film uses the settings you would expect to see the war fought at, while we see the ground shots, it is when we are in the sky watching the dog fights that we get to feel the peril the characters are going through.
Scene of the Movie – Any of the dog fights.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does play into stereotypes of other nationalities.
Final Thoughts – This is a genius war movie that rightly deserved to win the first Oscar, it brings us a story that shows how much people would have risked for war and just how far they would go for love.
Overall: Brilliant.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
If this is where the monarchy is headed Count me out!
Lion king 2019 is by far the worst of the Disney live action remakes & while newcomers/children will certainly love it many of the people that hold the original close to their hearts will leave wishing they had just stayed home with the far superior predecessor instead. Aladdin & The Lion King are two of the greatest animated feature films of all time & as I experienced them both in cinema on release they are very special to me. Now i loved the Aladdin remake & im not one for comparing these to the animated features but while I was watching this all i could think about was how much better the original is. While it looks absolutely gorgeous (until anything starts to move) the animation at times is so unnatural especially when animals are walking slowly that its constantly distracting & kills the illusion of these creatures being real. Voice work is bland/mediocre & delivered with almost no enthusiasm at all like the cast were more concerned with sounding different to the original than giving the characters charm & personality. Voices also dont feel connected to the characters like your watching a nature documentary thats been dubbed over. While Aladdin did its own thing & changed up the movie Lion King is practically & infuriatingly a scene for scene remake which would be ok if it had the charm, colour, grand scale, imagination, excitement, thrill, humour & emotional impact of the original but it doesnt. Songs are butchered/dull with seemingly no energy or spectacle to them at all feeling significantly toned down/grounded rather than fun & toe tapping (they have also ruined 'Be Prepared'). So whats new? theres new humour & yup you guessed it its really bad with awkward timing & dragged out jokes that just fall flat. I wanted so bad to love this movie but not even a scense of nostalgia kicked in either because the film is just soulless, unenthusiastic, boring, bland, lacking in excitement & magic. Kids will no doubt love it but for me its this years biggest let down. If it were a silent film with an epic score over the top it might of at least been unique/watchable & helped be bearable but as it is I just cant recomend seeing it. A big fat cash grab.