Search
Search results
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 I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t 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. Child’s 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. Here’s my Child’s 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. Chucky’s 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 Child’s 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 TV’s 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. He’s programmed to be Andy’s 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 there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s 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 it’s 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. Chucky’s 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 It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t 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 can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s 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. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s 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 it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t 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. Child’s 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. Here’s my Child’s 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. Chucky’s 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 Child’s 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 TV’s 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. He’s programmed to be Andy’s 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 there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s 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 it’s 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. Chucky’s 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 It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t 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 can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s 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. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s 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 it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Sweet Tooth in TV
Jun 23, 2021
Story/Plot (2 more)
Actors/acting
Music/Soundtrack
For some the rating being TV-14 (1 more)
Some of the CGI
A Lot of Heart and A Great Story, That Lives Up To The Hype
https://youtu.be/3vw5Un4qmU8
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Kyera (8 KP) rated Unborn (Unborn, #1) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
I was incredibly and pleasantly (surprised) autopsied by this novel. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of things that leave the reader wanting more (and not in a good way), but overall it was well thought out.
There is a prevalent element of mythology in this novel. Aspects of Greek mythology like the Underworld, Hades, Ares, and other (demi-)godly players are rampant throughout the story. But, it's combined with the (fallen) angels and heaven of religious mythology and stories. It's a strange combination that doesn't lend itself to logical commingling, although it worked relatively well here. Perhaps I'm just biased because I adore the mythology in all cultures.
My highest praise for this novel is the writing quality, not the characters, world, or plot - just the simple allure of a book that's written in proper, intelligent English. A surprising rarity in Y.A. books. The author has a wonderful command of the English language and uses vocabulary that make a reader wonder, "What does that mean?" I love books that will chose to use words strode or sauntered, rather than another banal alternative when expressing how someone made their way down the street. You want them to reference a thesaurus to make their lexicon as diverse as possible. No one wants to hear, he said, she said, they said over and over. Perhaps they shouted, or she bit back her words? Anything to give the story real depth and reality.
The shortcomings? Character development and world building. Don't get me wrong, it was certainly there but not as well thought out as it should have been. Relationships were crafted much more quickly than reasonably could be expected and it created a sense of falseness. If more attention had been given to those two aspects, it would have been a strong 4-star rating (rather than my 3/4 rating.)
Another trait of a good story, be it in a book, movie, tv show, or something else is lack of predictability. If you can guess what it going to happen in the story from just the first 50 pages, than it seems less appealing to continue. On this account, the author both confirmed my suspicions and utterly surprised me. Not long into my reading, I was jotting down notes and thoughts as I felt a situation professing. I wanted to have quotes, events, and feelings to reference later - especially if my expectations were fufilled. The end of the book on the other hand - completely unexpected.
There is a prevalent element of mythology in this novel. Aspects of Greek mythology like the Underworld, Hades, Ares, and other (demi-)godly players are rampant throughout the story. But, it's combined with the (fallen) angels and heaven of religious mythology and stories. It's a strange combination that doesn't lend itself to logical commingling, although it worked relatively well here. Perhaps I'm just biased because I adore the mythology in all cultures.
My highest praise for this novel is the writing quality, not the characters, world, or plot - just the simple allure of a book that's written in proper, intelligent English. A surprising rarity in Y.A. books. The author has a wonderful command of the English language and uses vocabulary that make a reader wonder, "What does that mean?" I love books that will chose to use words strode or sauntered, rather than another banal alternative when expressing how someone made their way down the street. You want them to reference a thesaurus to make their lexicon as diverse as possible. No one wants to hear, he said, she said, they said over and over. Perhaps they shouted, or she bit back her words? Anything to give the story real depth and reality.
The shortcomings? Character development and world building. Don't get me wrong, it was certainly there but not as well thought out as it should have been. Relationships were crafted much more quickly than reasonably could be expected and it created a sense of falseness. If more attention had been given to those two aspects, it would have been a strong 4-star rating (rather than my 3/4 rating.)
Another trait of a good story, be it in a book, movie, tv show, or something else is lack of predictability. If you can guess what it going to happen in the story from just the first 50 pages, than it seems less appealing to continue. On this account, the author both confirmed my suspicions and utterly surprised me. Not long into my reading, I was jotting down notes and thoughts as I felt a situation professing. I wanted to have quotes, events, and feelings to reference later - especially if my expectations were fufilled. The end of the book on the other hand - completely unexpected.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hunter Killer (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Now let's be honest, we all know that Hunter Killer isn't going to be sweeping the Oscar noms. As action fans, do we care? Noooooope!
This is a film that does exactly what you expect, and want it to do. It's Olympus Has Fallen. It's White House Down. It's Geostorm. It's modern action that you don't have to think about. It's that perfect diversion.
I think they tried to capitalise on the big names in this one for the posters. It doesn't really seem like Gary Oldman is in it enough to warrant second billing, but what do I know? The supporting actors were very good. The more I see Common pop up in films the more I'm enjoying him. There are also great performances from Toby Stephens, Michael Nyqvist and Linda Cardellini, which was a nice surprise.
Thanks to half term and my holiday I was traumatised to realise that I was potentially going to miss this one at the cinema. It was on for just one week at my Cineworld which coincided with my first week away, I got back to find most places weren't showing it any more and as expected, I was annoyed. Stupid half term. Vue ended up coming to my rescue with one slight drawback... it was only showing at a time where I'd have norally been in bed for about two hours.
There was a reason for the last bit of waffle. Having to see it in the middle of the night, I was fully aware that the film starts out relatively slowly. I found myself drifting off a little bit, but when the action started I was drawn in and some of the pieces were very effective.
I ended up doing a bit of an IMDb surf from this film while looking at some of the actors. It was a surprising learning curve. Hunter Killer was one of the last films made by Michael Nyqvist before his death, I also discovered that Toby Stephens is Maggie Smith's son. Two very different things that I'm surprised I didn't know.
What you should do
Hunter Killer is definitely worth watching if you catch it on the TV or streaming. It's an entertaining action film that will pass a couple of hours.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with some handy radar that would help me work out if spaces were big enough for me to parallel park in.
This is a film that does exactly what you expect, and want it to do. It's Olympus Has Fallen. It's White House Down. It's Geostorm. It's modern action that you don't have to think about. It's that perfect diversion.
I think they tried to capitalise on the big names in this one for the posters. It doesn't really seem like Gary Oldman is in it enough to warrant second billing, but what do I know? The supporting actors were very good. The more I see Common pop up in films the more I'm enjoying him. There are also great performances from Toby Stephens, Michael Nyqvist and Linda Cardellini, which was a nice surprise.
Thanks to half term and my holiday I was traumatised to realise that I was potentially going to miss this one at the cinema. It was on for just one week at my Cineworld which coincided with my first week away, I got back to find most places weren't showing it any more and as expected, I was annoyed. Stupid half term. Vue ended up coming to my rescue with one slight drawback... it was only showing at a time where I'd have norally been in bed for about two hours.
There was a reason for the last bit of waffle. Having to see it in the middle of the night, I was fully aware that the film starts out relatively slowly. I found myself drifting off a little bit, but when the action started I was drawn in and some of the pieces were very effective.
I ended up doing a bit of an IMDb surf from this film while looking at some of the actors. It was a surprising learning curve. Hunter Killer was one of the last films made by Michael Nyqvist before his death, I also discovered that Toby Stephens is Maggie Smith's son. Two very different things that I'm surprised I didn't know.
What you should do
Hunter Killer is definitely worth watching if you catch it on the TV or streaming. It's an entertaining action film that will pass a couple of hours.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I could do with some handy radar that would help me work out if spaces were big enough for me to parallel park in.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Nine in Books
Sep 13, 2020
I've been a fan of Rachelle Dekker ever since I read The Girl Behind the Red Rope. When I saw that Rachelle Dekker had released a new book entitled Nine, I knew it was a book that I needed to read. I was so glad I picked this book up!
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
Jun 7, 2020
You know when someone tells you you should watch something... and then someone else does... and after every new "oh my god, you haven't seen it?!" you become more stubborn about watching it? That's exactly why it has taken me so long to watch Snowpiercer.
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
With the world on the edge of a complete climate collapse scientists launched what they hoped was the solution to the crisis, they would cool the atmosphere and save everyone... but their solution proved to be the world's undoing. What's left of the human race now rides a purpose-built train outrunning an icy end. The people of the tail section are living a terrible life, no natural light, barely any food... they want things to change, but the rest of the train has other ideas.
There's an all star cast on board for Snowpiercer, they've definitely not scrimped in that department. Together everyone works, even with some strong character personalities.
Chris Evans plays our lead, Curtis. Evans can do a lot of different genres but this sort of science fiction didn't seem to suit him. Curtis is a flawed character by design but at no point did he feel like someone to get behind, it's possible to like a flawed leader but this one didn't have the strength to make it convincing.
Tilda Swinton pops up and gives us the much expected slightly nuts performance that only she could muster. While I enjoyed it I'm not sure what it added to the proceedings apart from a very over the top sci-fi edge.
In the confined spaces of the train you get a great sense of how they're living and the cameras are placed in such a way that it never feels claustrophobic. Even in the tail section where you'd expect that, the closeness boosts the bond between characters and the way their planning comes together.
The film has a very clear divide when it comes to life both inside and out of the train. The sweeping bright white landscape with the dark and vibrant interiors, the dull tones of the tail to the richness of the ticketed sections. There's a lot to see in all of it and I'm certainly keen to give it another watch to try and pick out more details from inside the train and what's hidden in the snow... though I have some issues believing that some of that stuff would have still been visible with the wind and weather... but anyway.
There's some movie "magic" that I have a problem with in Snowpiercer, specifically a shoot-out scene that I actively dislike because it's ridiculous. I happily suspend my logical thinking for so many things but this scene annoyed me a lot, there were so many alternative ways to do it that would have been believable... ugh... *deep breath*. I'm going to stop on that now to avoid ranting and spoilers.
It's a great idea and the original story from the graphic novel is an excellent piece to work off, and while the adaptation might not be faithful to that it does add something that's necessary for a single film format. Because of the story and the design of the set there's automatically a natural progression to everything but the film isn't entirely balanced. The beginning feels very heavy and drawn out then we get a sprint for the finish. There's a lot of opportunity for expanded story in the middle but it's not taken up, including it may have changed the tone of the film as it definitely wasn't in keeping with the rest but it would have been interesting to find out more about it. (This is one thing I'm hoping we get to see a bit more of in the TV show.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/snowpiercer-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantasy Island (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Michael Peña and Maggie Q in a film... I'm in. This was high up my watchlist even though Blumhouse and I don't always see eye to eye.
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).