Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Time to Exhale.
I saw this as a Cineworld “Secret Unlimited Screening” event (for non-UK readers, Cineworld is one of the main movie-theater chains), so went in – like the majority of the audience I suspect – predicting early sight of Lara Croft in skin tight shorts! This was a bit different! A secret screening is an interesting concept, and really tests the metal of a film in engaging its audience early. This one failed to some degree, with seven people (I was counting) walking out in the first 10 minutes. (To be fair on those seven, the film’s first 20 minutes are rather laborious; and to be fair on the film, this was a pretty full auditorium so as a percentage drop out it was low).
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Ethan Hawke (2 more)
Madeleine McGraw
Leaves much of the horror to the audience's imagination
Writing is a bit silly at times (1 more)
Teases more story elements and horror than it reveals
A Juvenile Curtain Call of Death
Somewhere in North Denver in 1978, The Black Phone sees Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) attempting to survive constant bullying at school and the abuse of an alcoholic father (played by Jeremy Davies). The missing kids in town are said to be a result of The Grabber (Ethan Hawke); a man who drives around in a black van with black balloons kidnapping and eventually killing kids. When Finney is suddenly taken by The Grabber, he’s told that the black phone in his room doesn’t work but then the phone rings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Every generation has a coming of age classic that they can point to and say that it resonated with them. Whether it be classic John Hughes movies such as Pretty in Pink or The Breakfast Club, there is always something that defines the youth of that generation. Whether it be the situations that the main characters find themselves in, or even something as simple as the music and fashion, there is usually something that will strike a familiar chord with the audience. Even when I go back and rewatch the classics, it reminds me of a simpler time, when my life struggles involved asking a girl to a dance or attempting to fit in to any number of awkward first-time moments that each of us at one time or another go through. Good Boys is such a movie, about the awkwardness and naivety of youth, even if the kids had a bigger potty mouth than I did as a child.
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Max (Jacob Tremblay), Thor (Brady Noon), and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) are a group of 12-year old boys known to their family and friends as the Bean Bag boys. Why do they refer to themselves as the Bean Bag Boys you ask? Why because they sit on Bean Bag chairs of course. Entering 6th grade they are trying to stand out but tend to do so in all the worst ways. Thor loves to sing but is bullied to not sign up for the school musical because it’s not a cool thing to be. Lucas is dealing with his parent’s new divorce and has a propensity to always tell the truth (even when the truth potentially causes more damage than a lie). Then there is Max, a young man whose hormones are beginning to take over his brain and can only think of the love of his life (and future wife of course) Brixlee.
Max being to shy to even look at Brixlee when she is looking his way is finally given a golden opportunity when he is invited by popular kid Soren (Izaac Wang) to a kissing party. The idea of being able to not only speak to Brixlee but be able to kiss her causes a rush of emotions that gravitate from excitement to terror. Max, believing that the way to his true-loves heart is by being a kissing expert recruits his fellow Bean Bag Boys on a quest to learn to kiss.
His quest will take him from spying on his “nymphomaniac” neighbor, to a treacherous highway crossing to get to the mall. They will have to brave frat houses, and potentially risky run-ins with pedophiles and the police, all to learn how to be a better kisser. Of course, there is plenty of laughs and situations that only naïve children could get themselves into, all of which had me and the entirety of the audience laughing the entire way through
Good Boys is a movie that relies on the audience connection with the main characters to succeed. Without that, you are left with a movie full of foul language and crude humor which have lately become a dime a dozen. Thankfully the casting of Good Boys far exceeds any expectations I had going into the theater. Comedies of these type lean heavily on the actors to carry the story through the hi-jinx that are around every corner and the actors were more than up to the challenge. Jacob Tremblay portrays perfectly the fear that every young boy (or girl) goes through when they imagine their first kiss. Keith L. Williams shows the heart break that a young kid goes through when deal with personal tragedy (in this case his parents’ divorce) and yet still remains true-to-himself anyway. Brady Noon excels at his desire to be cool, and still struggle with how coolness affects what he truly loves and wants to ultimately do. All three as a group convincingly take us on a journey that may seem outlandish, yet ultimately feel believable as well.
Good Boys also has a strong supporting cast, that add further dimension to the film. The two “old” girls Lily (Midori Francis) and Hannah (Molly Gordon) are fantastic in their portrayal of two women who simply want their drugs to get high. They will go to almost any lengths to get them back from the boys who stole them and yet end up becoming a bigger part to the film as a whole. Even the well meaning yet clueless parents of Lucas (Lil Rel Howery and Retta) add to the laughs as a couple trying their best to protect their son even as their own lives are driven apart.
Good Boys may come across in previews as a crude comedy with loads of foul language and sexual situations. While at first glance that may be what it is, as you pull back the layers you soon begin to realize that it’s a story, not about the words that are said, but the innocence of youth and what it means to grow apart as friends. The laughs are non-stop and the language excusable because of the innocence of those on the screen who are spouting them. As parents maybe you’d be looking to wash their mouths out with soap, but as the audience you can’t help but think how innocent they truly are. Good Boys is a movie that will resonate with many in the audience, who likely went through some of these very same dilemmas in their own coming of age stories. Maybe not through paintball fights at a frat house, or crossing a busy freeway, but we each have our own unique stories that helped to mold us into who we are today. It’s funny how watching a film like this can make you reminisce on your own experiences, even if it isn’t on the big screen for all to see.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/14/good-boys/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Clash of the Titans tells the story of men turning their backs on the gods. The gods grow weaker as men refuse to pay worship to them and neither side will budge. That's where Perseus (Sam Worthington) comes in. Perseus is a demigod, half man and half god. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is his father, but Perseus was raised as a fisherman. As the gods grow desperate, they turn to Zeus' brother who was banished to the underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to hopefully scare them into realizing "the order of things." When Hades onslaught kills Perseus' family, Perseus vows revenge against him and will do everything within his power to destroy the god of the underworld. Perseus' journey will not be easy as several ungodly beasts stand in the way of him reaching his goal as he struggles with accepting sanctuary as a god or continuing on this journey as a man.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Clash of the Titans was highly anticipated on my end for quite some time. The trailers were pretty fantastic and everything seemed to point to the film being epic. Directed by Louis Leterrier (Unleashed, The Incredible Hulk) and starring Sam Worthington (Avatar, Terminator: Salvation), Liam Neeson (Taken, Batman Begins), and Ralph Fiennes (In Bruges, The Hurt Locker), this film had a solid cast and a director with some pretty great films under his belt. It had all the elements to make a fantastic film and yet it somehow managed to fail.
The film felt like a watered down version of what a film based on the God of War video game could potentially be. All the same gods are there, the Medusa character is in there, there's a character battling against the gods, the similarities are pretty obvious. The only thing that is different is that the main character is named Perseus instead of Kratos. On one hand, it may not be a bad thing comparing the film to God of War. If they do decide to make a God of War film down the road though, it seems like it'll be way too similar to this film unless they go full-blown, balls out rated R with it. That's the route they should go anyway, but Clash of the Titans basically feels like a censored version of God of War.
Certain other things about the film really bugged me. The main one being that the two main female characters Io (Gemma Arterton) and Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) cried at EVERYTHING. Every time they spoke it was like they started getting teary eyed. "Oh Perseus, I can't follow you into Medusa's lair since I'm not a big strong man like you are. *sob*" Just made me want to slap them and go, "GET A GRIP, LADY! SHEESH!" The biggest pet peeve of mine lies in the finale of the film. Everything regarding Hades and the kraken are dealt with so quickly. The film makes a huge deal about both of them only to have everything wrapped up in less than five minutes when the time finally comes. It just wound up feeling very rushed and anticlimactic. Also, what was the deal with the prophecy the witches gave Perseus? Was the explanation of getting around that because Perseus was half god? That's pretty weak. Instead, we're going to go with this ending that's completely open-ended and leaves massive room for a potential sequel. Lame.
Despite all of the things I found wrong with the film, there were some high points. The CG seemed very all or nothing to me. At times, the effects were fantastic. The giant scorpions scene and the kraken being the best examples. Pegasus is also a great example. The winged horses looked fairly genuine, but they looked kind of odd when they flew. Other times though, it seemed way too obvious that the characters were standing in front of a green screen and fighting with creatures that weren't actually there. There's a scene near the beginning where we first see Perseus as an adult where his father is talking to him and a thunderstorm is beginning to brew. The sky was obviously CG. There were just several moments like that that brought me out of the film.
Ralph Fiennes as Hades was easily the high point for me as far as acting goes. Fiennes was most impressive in David Cronenberg's Spider and has been on my radar for actors to keep an eye on ever since. He doesn't disappoint here. His smarminess as Hades spoke volumes. The ferry scene is also pretty amazing, at least until Perseus and Io begin their Medusa training. Ugh.
A few humorous points, the South Park fan in me chimed in when Io told Perseus "You're more than half man half god." I thought she was going to follow up with, "You're actually half man, half bear, half pig. Or maybe you're actually half bear half man-pig." Still laughing about that one. The scene where Perseus emerges from Medusa's lair and Io is waiting for him, she's wearing this really weird outfit. I heard the guy next to me say, "What the...is she wearing a mop?!" and it made me laugh out loud. Best part of the whole film though, at the end, when everything had been resolved somebody yelled at the top of their lungs, "I AM A GOD!!!!!!" After a brief silence, everyone in the theater started laughing. Kinda sad that the most entertaining part of the film wasn't actually a part of the film itself.
Clash of the Titans was one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year, but fell short and wound up being one of the most disappointing. With mediocre special effects, a sloppy finale, and female characters that will get on your last nerve, the action film fails to live up to expectations. At the end of the day, Clash of the Titans is basically just a glorified Xena: Warrior Princess.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Trivia question for you…what does an immortal evil queen, King Arthur, Nazis and a boy born from Hell itself have in common? If you answered Hellboy you win a prize. The prize is going to the theater and watching the film and whether it’s a prize worth winning is something you’ll have to decide for yourself. I’m getting a bit ahead of myself though, so let’s rewind a bit and start at the beginning.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.