Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Searching (2018) in Movies
Apr 6, 2019
Catfish 2.0
After dealing with the death of his wife from cancer, a father tries to deal with raising his high school daughter only to find out everything with her and her life is not what it seems when she goes missing. He frantically starts combing through her social media accounts and contacting her friends to find out any lead as to her whereabouts.
A local police detective also comes to his aid to follow up on leads and keep the investigation going.
The story didn't follow the "Catfish" formula, only the way the story is told. The movie entirely exists through webcams, social media posts and TV footage and that is it's biggest triumph. Any unique way f telling a story, especially a compelling and inventive one, deserves attention in my book since most movies' formulas sort of run together these days.
As a parent, the film really does make you think about how much do we really know our teenage children? Could they be having relationships without our knowledge or conducting themselves in a way they were not raised?
My wife and I actually talked about this a bit while viewing the film. The entire world of social media can be very scary if you think about it and how much of our lives we have exposed out in cyberspace for others to see and potentially exploit.
I got rid of my Facebook around a year ago and haven't regretted it once.
A local police detective also comes to his aid to follow up on leads and keep the investigation going.
The story didn't follow the "Catfish" formula, only the way the story is told. The movie entirely exists through webcams, social media posts and TV footage and that is it's biggest triumph. Any unique way f telling a story, especially a compelling and inventive one, deserves attention in my book since most movies' formulas sort of run together these days.
As a parent, the film really does make you think about how much do we really know our teenage children? Could they be having relationships without our knowledge or conducting themselves in a way they were not raised?
My wife and I actually talked about this a bit while viewing the film. The entire world of social media can be very scary if you think about it and how much of our lives we have exposed out in cyberspace for others to see and potentially exploit.
I got rid of my Facebook around a year ago and haven't regretted it once.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019 (Updated Dec 19, 2019)
Attack of the Clones is easily my least favourite Star Wars movie, but still, I can't bring myself to completely hate it. It's still Star Wars. It's still a big part of my childhood.
The main issues for me lie within the story, and perhaps most infamously, the romance plot between Anakin and Padme. It's an integral part of the story for sure, but the dialogue is horrible, Hayden Christensen is oddly wooden, and unfortunately, it takes up a big part of Episode II's runtime.
I also find the action set pieces in AOTC a very mixed bag. Nothing particularly stands out, except maybe the arena fight scene with hundreds of Jedis, and the potentially great chase scene near the start is soiled by the needlessly quippy script work.
It's not all bad though. There are some great actors involved - Ewan McGregor is still awesome as Obi Wan, and of course, we're introduced to Count Dooku, played by the ever incredible Christopher Lee (although is character is ultimately pointless).
Locations such as Kamino are something new and different and great to look at, and then of course, the single most important thing about AOTC - it paved the way for the Clone Wars TV show, so it definitely deserves credit for that.
Unfortunately, Episode II feels overstuffed with a while lot of nothing, and is no where the same quality as Star Wars at it's very best, but like I said, I can't hate on it too much. For better or worse, it's part of the Star Wars experience.
The main issues for me lie within the story, and perhaps most infamously, the romance plot between Anakin and Padme. It's an integral part of the story for sure, but the dialogue is horrible, Hayden Christensen is oddly wooden, and unfortunately, it takes up a big part of Episode II's runtime.
I also find the action set pieces in AOTC a very mixed bag. Nothing particularly stands out, except maybe the arena fight scene with hundreds of Jedis, and the potentially great chase scene near the start is soiled by the needlessly quippy script work.
It's not all bad though. There are some great actors involved - Ewan McGregor is still awesome as Obi Wan, and of course, we're introduced to Count Dooku, played by the ever incredible Christopher Lee (although is character is ultimately pointless).
Locations such as Kamino are something new and different and great to look at, and then of course, the single most important thing about AOTC - it paved the way for the Clone Wars TV show, so it definitely deserves credit for that.
Unfortunately, Episode II feels overstuffed with a while lot of nothing, and is no where the same quality as Star Wars at it's very best, but like I said, I can't hate on it too much. For better or worse, it's part of the Star Wars experience.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Men in Black (1997) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020
I don't know what it is about this movie that just left me unsatisfied, but I just did not like this film. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones play an intergalactic crime-fighting duo. It definitely feels like Smith was the token black man in this film and as much as it was seen in the 90s and throughout other decades of film, it doesn't make it any more pleasurable to watch.
This film's plot just could not keep me engaged. I always end up really disappointed when the storyline is so promising and there is so much room to run and a shoddy plot comes out of it and the film or book or tv show, whatever the medium, ends up being lackluster. That's how I felt about this film.
Tommy Lee Jones's character was stiff and unlikeable so by the time the end of the film comes, you don't feel any type of way about how his character arc is resolved. I have a feeling the intention was to feel sad for him but also sad for Jay and it just doesn't happen like that. Will Smith's jokes were not funny and it's clear, once again, that his blackness was what he brought to this film. I find myself having a hard time reconciling the stereotype they put him in and the character he was supposed to play. I'm thinking they're one and the same.
Generally just disappointed in this film. Am I going to watch the next one? Yes. Will I probably regret it? Yes. I guess we'll see.
This film's plot just could not keep me engaged. I always end up really disappointed when the storyline is so promising and there is so much room to run and a shoddy plot comes out of it and the film or book or tv show, whatever the medium, ends up being lackluster. That's how I felt about this film.
Tommy Lee Jones's character was stiff and unlikeable so by the time the end of the film comes, you don't feel any type of way about how his character arc is resolved. I have a feeling the intention was to feel sad for him but also sad for Jay and it just doesn't happen like that. Will Smith's jokes were not funny and it's clear, once again, that his blackness was what he brought to this film. I find myself having a hard time reconciling the stereotype they put him in and the character he was supposed to play. I'm thinking they're one and the same.
Generally just disappointed in this film. Am I going to watch the next one? Yes. Will I probably regret it? Yes. I guess we'll see.
The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film and Television
Book
What's your impression of the CIA? A bumbling agency that can't protect its own spies? A rogue...
Guinness World Records 2016 Blockbusters
Book
If you're hungry for trending trivia, mind-blowing stats and more pop-culture records than you can...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Banana Splits Movie (2019) in Movies
Jan 4, 2021
The Banana Splits Movie, a horror-fied reimagining of the late 60s/early 70s Hanna-Barbera tv show, knows exactly what it's trying to be. It's silly and tongue in cheek, but toes the line pretty well in pretty much every aspect, not going overboard in either direction, and ultimately delivers a good time for anyone who enjoys a cheesy slasher.
The premise is deliciously simple - a family attend a taping of the titular Banana Splits show, their youngest sons favourite, and end up fighting for survival alongside fellow audience members and backstage crew, when the famous child friendly animatronic stars of the show go haywire and embark on a killing spree. I'm certain it's been said before, but imagine Five Nights at Freddy's crossed over with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and you're pretty much there.
It's got a decent amount of gore (mostly done practically which is always a thumbs up), some imaginative kills and set pieces, and a good cast - the nice characters are likeable, the assholes are suitably unlikable (and die horribly of course) - it plays it's safe in that regard, but there's also some half decent character development in place, so I can't grumble too much.
The writing isn't great, and the pacing is a little iffy, could have done with maybe being a little shorter, but honestly, if you go into this fully on board with the premise, then you're almost guaranteed to have a fun and bloody time. Good luck getting that theme song out of your head...
The premise is deliciously simple - a family attend a taping of the titular Banana Splits show, their youngest sons favourite, and end up fighting for survival alongside fellow audience members and backstage crew, when the famous child friendly animatronic stars of the show go haywire and embark on a killing spree. I'm certain it's been said before, but imagine Five Nights at Freddy's crossed over with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and you're pretty much there.
It's got a decent amount of gore (mostly done practically which is always a thumbs up), some imaginative kills and set pieces, and a good cast - the nice characters are likeable, the assholes are suitably unlikable (and die horribly of course) - it plays it's safe in that regard, but there's also some half decent character development in place, so I can't grumble too much.
The writing isn't great, and the pacing is a little iffy, could have done with maybe being a little shorter, but honestly, if you go into this fully on board with the premise, then you're almost guaranteed to have a fun and bloody time. Good luck getting that theme song out of your head...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Firstly, and slightly off topic, I wanted to mention the actual event of this being released. The sheer volume of screenings was amazing and I would be really interested in knowing how many people attended at my cinema. The other thing that amused me was what I would consider to be really stereotypical advertising. Most of the audience when I went were younger than me so I'm not sure that Cunnard and health related advertising was really their sort of thing (I did appreciate the back pain tip though.)
Despite having never seen a full episode of Downton I still enjoyed the film, they did (what felt like) an incredibly good job of filling in the blanks in the backstory. I'm sure there were still bits missing but I was certainly handed enough to understand everything that what going on.
The other thing that was a great benefit to the film was the fact that everyone had been acting these parts, and with each other, for years. The interactions were great and the ensemble made for a brilliant production. I'm not going to go into the individual main actors, it seems a little redundant considering how well established the Downton world is. All the actors brought a great feeling of history to their roles and I can't argue with their success.
All this praise can't go on forever though, I did have some issues with the storyline. The main arc seemed to work well but some of the smaller threads left me shrugging. We have Tom who is sought out by a gentleman played by Stephen Campbell Moore. This part was rather fleeting, and that perplexed me. Trying to avoid spoilers... if I told someone this part of the story out of context combined with the description of the film I would expect them to think it was a major part of the film, and not just something that goes as quickly as it arrived. Then we have Barrow (I really hope I've got that character name right), he has his own little story that plays alongside the main one as we see him put out during the tensions at Downton. I don't object to this storyline, but I don't see that it made any impact on the rest of the film, there was certainly nothing in it that couldn't have been achieved in the main setting. All it really did was give him somewhere to go that wasn't the house.
I was very aware throughout that this "film" felt like a Christmas special. There were a lot of bits to it that were left open and didn't tie together at the end... which is exactly how you'd expect a series to end to lead into another. I came out wondering if I'd missed something about a new series. I probably would have been happier having seen this as a TV special... although I obviously wouldn't have seen it had it been on TV because I don't watch the series. The whole thing has a very homely feel to it which I just don't think works in a cinema setting. That being said, I did enjoy myself and I'm sure that fans of the series would have enjoyed it more than I did.
Read the full review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/downton-abbey-movie-review.html
Despite having never seen a full episode of Downton I still enjoyed the film, they did (what felt like) an incredibly good job of filling in the blanks in the backstory. I'm sure there were still bits missing but I was certainly handed enough to understand everything that what going on.
The other thing that was a great benefit to the film was the fact that everyone had been acting these parts, and with each other, for years. The interactions were great and the ensemble made for a brilliant production. I'm not going to go into the individual main actors, it seems a little redundant considering how well established the Downton world is. All the actors brought a great feeling of history to their roles and I can't argue with their success.
All this praise can't go on forever though, I did have some issues with the storyline. The main arc seemed to work well but some of the smaller threads left me shrugging. We have Tom who is sought out by a gentleman played by Stephen Campbell Moore. This part was rather fleeting, and that perplexed me. Trying to avoid spoilers... if I told someone this part of the story out of context combined with the description of the film I would expect them to think it was a major part of the film, and not just something that goes as quickly as it arrived. Then we have Barrow (I really hope I've got that character name right), he has his own little story that plays alongside the main one as we see him put out during the tensions at Downton. I don't object to this storyline, but I don't see that it made any impact on the rest of the film, there was certainly nothing in it that couldn't have been achieved in the main setting. All it really did was give him somewhere to go that wasn't the house.
I was very aware throughout that this "film" felt like a Christmas special. There were a lot of bits to it that were left open and didn't tie together at the end... which is exactly how you'd expect a series to end to lead into another. I came out wondering if I'd missed something about a new series. I probably would have been happier having seen this as a TV special... although I obviously wouldn't have seen it had it been on TV because I don't watch the series. The whole thing has a very homely feel to it which I just don't think works in a cinema setting. That being said, I did enjoy myself and I'm sure that fans of the series would have enjoyed it more than I did.
Read the full review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/downton-abbey-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated It Comes At Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Tension packed, slow burner
I headed into ‘It Comes At Night’ in a similar way to when I saw ‘Get Out‘ a few months back – having seen a lot of positive four or five star buzz about it on my news feeds, but without actually seeing the trailer. I skimmed a couple of reviews this time, just to get a rough idea of what I was in for, and one of the words which seemed to crop up on a number of them was ‘unsettling’. Well, that sold it for me! Get Out is my favourite movie of the year so far, and I felt that my enjoyment of seeing that had been greatly improved having not seen the trailer, and with no expectations. So, I went into ‘It Comes At Night’ hoping for a similar experience.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
Lee (2222 KP) Jul 20, 2019
Andy K (10821 KP) Jul 20, 2019