Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Deep Space Nine (2018) in Movies
Jul 23, 2019
Where would we be without DS9?
Maybe the best Trek of all time?
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? đ
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? đ
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Darkly fun
The Hunt follows twelve strangers as they wake up in a clearing with no recollection of how they got there, and soon find themselves hunted for sport by a group of liberal elites.
Starring Betty Gilpin, Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Justin Hartley, and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, The Huntâs original release was delayed in 2019 due to a number of mass shootings in America. It was pushed back to Spring 2020 only for it to come out just before the big lockdown for COVID-19, so to say this film has suffered a few setbacks would be an understatement, and this is a shame as itâs actually one of the most enjoyable new releases Iâve seen in 2020 so far.
Right from the opening scene, The Hunt shows you what itâs made of - understated and subtle it is not. Itâs a riotously funny and witty parody, poking fun at absolutely everyone in it with itâs on the nose references that are so relevant to todayâs political and social climate. Neither the prey or the hunters escape unscathed, in all manner of the word, and everything from climate change to racial prejudices and political ideology feature heavily in the running satire on offer here. This is a darkly funny and very smart film, and it knows it.
What this film is not though, is a horror film. Gory yes and brilliantly so, but it is in no means scary or horrifying. The plot itself is of course reminiscent of Battle Royale and even The Hunger Games, but The Hunt is very much itâs own film. It starts with an overly dramatic score and a decent amount of tension, and shifts into the action virtually straight away - with a short 90 minute runtime, this doesnât waste itâs time on unnecessary exposition. Whilst I wouldnât say this isnât entirely unpredictable, The Hunt still has a few surprises to throw at you. The first half hour plays out a lot differently than youâd expect and makes you wonder if itâs played out itâs hand a little too soon.
But then in walks Betty Gilpin who is by far the star of the show and leads the remaining hour almost single handedly. Gilpinâs Crystal is a kickass, strong, smart heroine and sheâs a delight to watch, although even she canât quite save the lull half way through. Fortunately the lull doesnât last long and watching Crystal exact her revenge on the hunters is wonderful to watch. Hilary Swank however is on the sidelines for most of the film, and for some bizarre reason whenever she is featured earlier on her face is kept hidden which is a rather strange move when we all know who it is. But despite this, when Swank is finally revealed in the final act she plays the cold, cruel and calculating Athena as a perfect callous bitch. The final exchange and reveal between Athena and Crystal is smart, tense and wickedly funny, and the ensuing fight scene is beautifully choreographed with some great laughs thrown in, and is probably the best fight scene Iâve seen in any film in quite some time.
The Hunt is gloriously over the top and mocks everyone and everything, yet also proves to be an equally thought provoking and relevant commentary on todayâs society. As long as youâre not easily offended and donât take it too seriously, itâll prove to be hugely entertaining.
Starring Betty Gilpin, Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Justin Hartley, and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, The Huntâs original release was delayed in 2019 due to a number of mass shootings in America. It was pushed back to Spring 2020 only for it to come out just before the big lockdown for COVID-19, so to say this film has suffered a few setbacks would be an understatement, and this is a shame as itâs actually one of the most enjoyable new releases Iâve seen in 2020 so far.
Right from the opening scene, The Hunt shows you what itâs made of - understated and subtle it is not. Itâs a riotously funny and witty parody, poking fun at absolutely everyone in it with itâs on the nose references that are so relevant to todayâs political and social climate. Neither the prey or the hunters escape unscathed, in all manner of the word, and everything from climate change to racial prejudices and political ideology feature heavily in the running satire on offer here. This is a darkly funny and very smart film, and it knows it.
What this film is not though, is a horror film. Gory yes and brilliantly so, but it is in no means scary or horrifying. The plot itself is of course reminiscent of Battle Royale and even The Hunger Games, but The Hunt is very much itâs own film. It starts with an overly dramatic score and a decent amount of tension, and shifts into the action virtually straight away - with a short 90 minute runtime, this doesnât waste itâs time on unnecessary exposition. Whilst I wouldnât say this isnât entirely unpredictable, The Hunt still has a few surprises to throw at you. The first half hour plays out a lot differently than youâd expect and makes you wonder if itâs played out itâs hand a little too soon.
But then in walks Betty Gilpin who is by far the star of the show and leads the remaining hour almost single handedly. Gilpinâs Crystal is a kickass, strong, smart heroine and sheâs a delight to watch, although even she canât quite save the lull half way through. Fortunately the lull doesnât last long and watching Crystal exact her revenge on the hunters is wonderful to watch. Hilary Swank however is on the sidelines for most of the film, and for some bizarre reason whenever she is featured earlier on her face is kept hidden which is a rather strange move when we all know who it is. But despite this, when Swank is finally revealed in the final act she plays the cold, cruel and calculating Athena as a perfect callous bitch. The final exchange and reveal between Athena and Crystal is smart, tense and wickedly funny, and the ensuing fight scene is beautifully choreographed with some great laughs thrown in, and is probably the best fight scene Iâve seen in any film in quite some time.
The Hunt is gloriously over the top and mocks everyone and everything, yet also proves to be an equally thought provoking and relevant commentary on todayâs society. As long as youâre not easily offended and donât take it too seriously, itâll prove to be hugely entertaining.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Land of the Dead (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Twenty years after his last installment of the classic âDeadâ zombie genre, landmark Horror writer/director George Romero has returned to the delight of fans worldwide.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous âDeadâ films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romeroâs Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85âs disappointing âDay of the Deadâ, but on par with the ground breaking âDawn of the Dead and the classic Original âNight of the Living Dead.â
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Rileyâs prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with âLandâ being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, âLandâ will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
After years of various horror projects, and remakes of his previous âDeadâ films, fans had begun to wonder if they had seen the last of Romeroâs Zombie films and had to content themselves with the remakes and rumored offshoots and sequels from such.
Thankfully, with Land of the Dead Romero has returned to his basics and has crafted a Zombie thriller that is not only better than 85âs disappointing âDay of the Deadâ, but on par with the ground breaking âDawn of the Dead and the classic Original âNight of the Living Dead.â
For those who are not familiar with the series, the dead have arisen and now walk the earth looking for humans to feed upon. Gone is any memory of their former selves, only the insatiable desire to feed remains. How this event happened is never explained in the films viewers simply have to accept that it is happening and that those who are bitten by zombies are destined to join the ranks of the undead.
Like the previous films, the story follows a group of humans who are attempting to survive against the zombie hordes and who seek shelter and a way to stave off the zombie masses.
In Land of the Dead, a group of survivors have taken refuge in a fortified city where the common folks live in the streets while the affluent live in pristine high rise complex with many of the luxuries of their past lives.
One such survivor is Riley (Simon Baker), who spends his time venturing beyond the walls of the city with his team as they attempt to locate food, medicines, and other needed items in cities that have been abandoned due to zombie infestation.
As the film opens, Riley is completing his last run as he plans to venture north to find a cold and desolated area that is devoid of zombies and huddled masses.
His second in command Cholo, (John Leguizamo), is anxious to take over, as he sees the expeditions as a chance to obtain valuable items such as cigars and whiskey, which he can in turn sell to those who live in luxury. This desire causes much friction between Riley and Cholo but with the pending departure of Riley, Cholo realizes he may be able to finally purchase a home of his own in the luxury high rise.
Things do not go as planned for Cholo as when he tells his boss, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), about his plans to move into the new complex, he is shocked to learn that Rileyâs prediction of class exclusions in the building apply to him as well.
Furious over being used and cheated of his dreams and money, and an attempt upon his life, Cholo decides to hijack a well-armed armored vehicle that defends the city in an effort to extort his payment from Kaufman.
At the same time, Riley has learned that he has be swindled from his car, and soon finds himself working with Kaufman in an attempt to recover the armored vehicle from Cholo before he unleashes a hail of rockets upon the city. In short order, Riley and his support team are forced to enter the zombie infested streets to save the day.
Of course with âLandâ being a Zombie film, the city will soon find itself overrun with all manner of ghouls and there will be plenty of flesh splitting, blood spattering, gore spewing scenes that will delight fans of the genre and elicit more than a few shrieks and cheers from the audience.
It is learned that the zombies have started to evolve and as such, now communicate with each other in a basic way, which makes their attacks even more dangerous as they are organized and starting to use tools and weapons.
What this all ads up to is a thrilling romp that will delight fans of the genre. Sure the story and characters are not the deepest, but as horror films go, there is a complexity to them. Hopper does great work as Kaufman as his malicious and selfish nature provides the perfect focal point to the films numerous commentaries on topics ranging from social class, to politics and well fare as well as the plight of the inner cities.
The genius of Romero is that he can insert so many topics into the film without it every seeming heavy-handed or over the top. The use of social commentary adds strength to the story as while the characters are in a very unrealistic situation, their base desires, motivations and behaviors are easily identifiable and strong.
Some may see Land of the Dead as just another blood and guts film with a basic story that lacks depth. To those who are fans of the genre and series, âLandâ will likely be seen as a triumphant return to the genre he made his own by Romero and will enjoy the ride.
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
âA competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universeâ.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflixâs âBrightâ, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe youâll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who donât share the policeâs âprogressiveâ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the filmâs titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we donât get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesnât struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the storiesâ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world Iâd like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys donât fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a ÂŁ20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that youâll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription itâs hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who donât share the policeâs âprogressiveâ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the filmâs titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we donât get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesnât struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the storiesâ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world Iâd like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys donât fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a ÂŁ20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that youâll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription itâs hard to be too critical.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, heâs certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects itâll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community â a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, thereâs certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film Iâve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. Itâs also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, itâs a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes â in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiigâs part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesnât do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of âLeisurelandâ are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. Iâm not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and thatâs unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films youâll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. Itâs certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects itâll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community â a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, thereâs certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film Iâve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. Itâs also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, itâs a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes â in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiigâs part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesnât do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of âLeisurelandâ are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. Iâm not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and thatâs unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films youâll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. Itâs certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
When it is a directorâs second, or sophomore movie, if you like, there is a lot of unfair pressure that finds people comparing the new work to the first one. Especially if that first work has set you up as the saviour of a particular genre, as was the case with Jordan Peele. Get Out was an excellent film for its type â a breath of fresh air, so they say, that subverted what a modern horror movie is and can be.
I actually donât think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argumentâŚ
Not that Get Out isnât great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyongâo who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here â on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The âwhiteâ family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he canât just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didnât work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on â enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Letâs talk about that privately later⌠See this movie for Moss and especially Nyongâo, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise itâs a take it or leave it kind of thing.
I actually donât think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argumentâŚ
Not that Get Out isnât great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyongâo who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here â on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The âwhiteâ family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he canât just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didnât work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on â enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Letâs talk about that privately later⌠See this movie for Moss and especially Nyongâo, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise itâs a take it or leave it kind of thing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 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 âThe Phantom of the Operaâ âBeauty and the Beastâ and ?â 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 Eveyâs 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 âPhantomâ and âBeautyâ 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 âThe Phantom of the Operaâ âBeauty and the Beastâ and ?â 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 Eveyâs 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 âPhantomâ and âBeautyâ 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.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
In 2017 the stale market of âhorrorâ thrillers got a royal shake-up when Jordan Peele made Get Out. All of a sudden it seemed possible again to use the tired genre, that had been relying on gore and jump shocks alone for at least two decades, as a palette for intelligent social commentary and some seriously artistic flourishes. The following year, Ari Aster came out of nowhere with a debut feature that impressed everyone for itâs originality and bravado in this new âart-horrorâ model â the devisive yet always interesting Hereditary, a film that confused me on first watch, but gave me faith that I could be unnerved again, itâs secret being that you couldnât compare it to anything since the golden days of the 70s.
So, when I saw the trailer for Midsommar in 2019 and realised it was the same director, it went straight to the top of my must see list. Add to the appeal the significant lure of the lead actress and main character, the extremely promising Florence Pugh, who blew me away for her raw ability in Lady Macbeth, and beguiled me even more in every minute of Chan-Wook Parkâs superlative espionage mini-series The Little Drummer Girl, and I knew this was something I didnât want to miss. Sometimes it only takes two projects on a CV to elevate a future star from obscurity to A-list potential. In Pugh I had already seen enough range, charisma and depth to suspect she was one of those special few. By the end of Midsommar I was convinced of it!
Plot wise, all you need to know going in cold is that Dani (Pugh) racked with grief following early scenes is dragged to Sweden to participate in the Midsommar celebrations of a small isolated community, as her relationship with boyfriend Christian is very much on the rocks and she is in need of some catharsis and release. At first the Idyllic setting, bathed in sunlight you can almost feel, seems refreshing and clean. The whites, yellows and blues of the images are so crisp you can imagine every smell and texture, and you find yourself smiling, despite the fact a creeping unease and sinister secret is already infiltrating the calm in wonderfully subtle ways.
Needless to say it goes to some very dark and strange places. So much so I gasped out loud twice and stood up from my seat involuntarily on one particularly disturbing moment. To try and explain how that unfolds and comes to be is both impossible and would need some big time spoilers, so I wonât do that. Itâs enough to say that where you are emotionally at the end of this filmic experience is very, very far from where you started. Much in the same way as Hereditary, you feel you have been dragged by the hair on a very uncomfortable journey that is both strangely unsatisfying, confusing and upsetting; you canât say you âlikedâ either film as much as admitting you canât stop thinking about them and need to see them again to absorb the detail, if indeed you can bear that.
As of writing this I havenât gone back and watched this again â Iâm genuinely wary of putting myself through it a second time! But, I have gone back to Hereditary and appreciated it much more knowing the ending already, and seeing the detail that is there from the beginning, that makes it all make sense in a way it doesnât first time around. Midsommar, I sense, is the same, in that there has been so much attention to the build up and background that you will see and hear relevant clues to the mystery much more the more times you watch it. What they are wearing, images on walls and seemingly insignificant things the camera picks up on create a tapestry of loose threads that can be woven together into deeper meaning if that is what you want to do.
Without doing that it may seem like a bewildering entity, deliberately odd for the sake of it, and as such it could put anyone off. At 2 hours and 28 minutes it is a bit of a stretch, and the last half hour, once it descends into the complete madness suggested earlier, perhaps doesnât live up to the promises it makes. Also, despite Pugh being a mesmeric presence from start to finish, the supporting cast canât quite go with her on the same level. Even the talented Will Poulter seems burdened by a less than three dimensional character, underwritten as are many in a script that focuses so much on Dani that everything else suffers.
My overall impression of it as a film is that it falls short of greatness by a narrow margin, but comes very close at times to genuine genius. It is the promise of Aster as a filmmaker that excites me most, even if this is not the film it could have been with a little more experience, maturity and, perhaps, budget. It is his Bottle Rocket, or Hard Eight, when you suspect he will have a Grand Budapest Hotel, or a There Will Be Blood in him at some point down the line.
In conclusion, I canât emphasise enough how much I was drawn to every moment of what Florence Pugh was doing. Be wary of the film if a casual viewing experience is what you want, because it may infuriate you, and compel you even to switch it off, if you are not totally ready to meet it where it wants to take you. But, watch it for Pugh and see what a rare talent she is bringing to cinema into the 2020s. A very exciting prospect indeed.
So, when I saw the trailer for Midsommar in 2019 and realised it was the same director, it went straight to the top of my must see list. Add to the appeal the significant lure of the lead actress and main character, the extremely promising Florence Pugh, who blew me away for her raw ability in Lady Macbeth, and beguiled me even more in every minute of Chan-Wook Parkâs superlative espionage mini-series The Little Drummer Girl, and I knew this was something I didnât want to miss. Sometimes it only takes two projects on a CV to elevate a future star from obscurity to A-list potential. In Pugh I had already seen enough range, charisma and depth to suspect she was one of those special few. By the end of Midsommar I was convinced of it!
Plot wise, all you need to know going in cold is that Dani (Pugh) racked with grief following early scenes is dragged to Sweden to participate in the Midsommar celebrations of a small isolated community, as her relationship with boyfriend Christian is very much on the rocks and she is in need of some catharsis and release. At first the Idyllic setting, bathed in sunlight you can almost feel, seems refreshing and clean. The whites, yellows and blues of the images are so crisp you can imagine every smell and texture, and you find yourself smiling, despite the fact a creeping unease and sinister secret is already infiltrating the calm in wonderfully subtle ways.
Needless to say it goes to some very dark and strange places. So much so I gasped out loud twice and stood up from my seat involuntarily on one particularly disturbing moment. To try and explain how that unfolds and comes to be is both impossible and would need some big time spoilers, so I wonât do that. Itâs enough to say that where you are emotionally at the end of this filmic experience is very, very far from where you started. Much in the same way as Hereditary, you feel you have been dragged by the hair on a very uncomfortable journey that is both strangely unsatisfying, confusing and upsetting; you canât say you âlikedâ either film as much as admitting you canât stop thinking about them and need to see them again to absorb the detail, if indeed you can bear that.
As of writing this I havenât gone back and watched this again â Iâm genuinely wary of putting myself through it a second time! But, I have gone back to Hereditary and appreciated it much more knowing the ending already, and seeing the detail that is there from the beginning, that makes it all make sense in a way it doesnât first time around. Midsommar, I sense, is the same, in that there has been so much attention to the build up and background that you will see and hear relevant clues to the mystery much more the more times you watch it. What they are wearing, images on walls and seemingly insignificant things the camera picks up on create a tapestry of loose threads that can be woven together into deeper meaning if that is what you want to do.
Without doing that it may seem like a bewildering entity, deliberately odd for the sake of it, and as such it could put anyone off. At 2 hours and 28 minutes it is a bit of a stretch, and the last half hour, once it descends into the complete madness suggested earlier, perhaps doesnât live up to the promises it makes. Also, despite Pugh being a mesmeric presence from start to finish, the supporting cast canât quite go with her on the same level. Even the talented Will Poulter seems burdened by a less than three dimensional character, underwritten as are many in a script that focuses so much on Dani that everything else suffers.
My overall impression of it as a film is that it falls short of greatness by a narrow margin, but comes very close at times to genuine genius. It is the promise of Aster as a filmmaker that excites me most, even if this is not the film it could have been with a little more experience, maturity and, perhaps, budget. It is his Bottle Rocket, or Hard Eight, when you suspect he will have a Grand Budapest Hotel, or a There Will Be Blood in him at some point down the line.
In conclusion, I canât emphasise enough how much I was drawn to every moment of what Florence Pugh was doing. Be wary of the film if a casual viewing experience is what you want, because it may infuriate you, and compel you even to switch it off, if you are not totally ready to meet it where it wants to take you. But, watch it for Pugh and see what a rare talent she is bringing to cinema into the 2020s. A very exciting prospect indeed.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the worldâs attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual âhorrorâ, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of âcrazyâ.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or donât take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoeâs face! It alone will guarantee this filmâs cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either â consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we donât know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I donât think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for⌠something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you canât define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight â which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night⌠it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good⌠I donât know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable â Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work â and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now⌠I can see a touch of the Emperorâs new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just canât deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that donât tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just donât go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism⌠The Lighthouse, for all itâs debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or donât take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoeâs face! It alone will guarantee this filmâs cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either â consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we donât know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I donât think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for⌠something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you canât define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight â which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night⌠it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good⌠I donât know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable â Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work â and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now⌠I can see a touch of the Emperorâs new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just canât deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that donât tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just donât go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism⌠The Lighthouse, for all itâs debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months Iâve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still donât necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Childâs Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Hereâs my Childâs Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chuckyâs murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Childâs Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TVâs to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. Heâs programmed to be Andyâs best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does thereâs a loneliness about Andyâs character that almost seems to justify Chuckyâs behavior. He doesnât agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Childâs Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls itâs harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chuckyâs infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great Itâs just a shame I canât take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! Iâm not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isnât a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I canât picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. Itâs like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Childâs Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Childâs Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. Iâve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles sheâs in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film sheâs in. Playing Andyâs mum in this film doesnât work for me whatsoever. Thereâs no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesnât play a key role as such to Andyâs arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative itâs how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Childâs Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldnât really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80âs flair to it. Childâs Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst itâs taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, itâs safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Childâs Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months Iâve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still donât necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Childâs Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Hereâs my Childâs Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chuckyâs murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Childâs Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TVâs to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. Heâs programmed to be Andyâs best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does thereâs a loneliness about Andyâs character that almost seems to justify Chuckyâs behavior. He doesnât agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Childâs Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls itâs harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chuckyâs infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great Itâs just a shame I canât take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! Iâm not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isnât a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I canât picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. Itâs like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Childâs Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Childâs Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. Iâve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles sheâs in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film sheâs in. Playing Andyâs mum in this film doesnât work for me whatsoever. Thereâs no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesnât play a key role as such to Andyâs arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative itâs how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Childâs Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldnât really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80âs flair to it. Childâs Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst itâs taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, itâs safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Childâs Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Chad Miller (121 KP) Jul 23, 2019
Eleanor (1463 KP) Jul 24, 2019