Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Freaky (2021) in Movies
Apr 24, 2021
More body-switching horror mixed with a bit of comedy. Vince Vaughn was definitely the pull on this for me.
Millie's high school life is derailed when she switches places with a serial killer called The Butcher. She has 24 hours to work out how to switch back or she'll be trapped as a wanted criminal for the rest of her life.
This one... surprised me. I was hoping for an average slasher sort of film, all killer bit of filler, but I actually quite enjoyed the ride on Freaky.
Body swapping isn't a new idea, Big did it, 13 Going On 30, Chucky... sort of. It's a comforting sort of base that gives you room for fun, and in this instance, serial killer and teenage girl was a pretty good combo.
One thing to beware of is that this film is very gory. The beginning starts off as your typical teen horror and moves into the slasher part quite quickly. It's over the top in that ridiculous way that takes away some of the horror factor, and that's how I like these sorts of movies.
When it comes to the acting we get a collection of typical teens, there was nothing that seemed out of place. Solid acting to the expected stereotypes and it absolutely didn't rock the boat.
Vince Vaughn as our menacing murderer was quite terrifying for the moments we saw him in that role. But of course he spent most of the film as Millie. On this point my brain automatically went to the Jack Black comparison in the Jumanji films. His rendition of a teenage girl was great, and Vaughn's was just okay. While both of these roles were over the top, Vaughn's performance was "almost but not quite" and didn't sit right in Freaky.
The flip side of this was Kathryn Newton as Millie. As actual Millie I can't really remember anything about the performance, but as The Butcher there was a definite nutter vibe terminating from her. I'm not sure how they worked on the characters, for Newton the only real guidance was "psycho killer", and I think that left room for a little leeway on this side of the swap.
I was pleased that they took things into consideration during the swap. The struggle of adapting to the bodies was clear and continually there, it wasn't forgotten for the sake of getting on with the story. Millie possessed by The Butcher has a great interaction with another character, and this point is a big focus and heavy on the anxiety to watch because you're caught between a rock and a hard place about what you want the outcome to be.
There is one part of the movie that really weirded me out, I'm sure you'll be able to identify it too so I won't spoil it here. But it didn't feel necessary, it achieved nothing, and felt like it was inserted to get a reaction out of the viewer... exactly as it has here.
Freaky has a good balance between thriller, horror and comedy, and despite the imbalance in the acting/characters I found it to be a great watch. The foreknowledge of the general outcome of a body swap film (because let's face it, we all know how they end) leaves you the time to enjoy the nuttiness of everything else.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/freaky-movie-review.html
Millie's high school life is derailed when she switches places with a serial killer called The Butcher. She has 24 hours to work out how to switch back or she'll be trapped as a wanted criminal for the rest of her life.
This one... surprised me. I was hoping for an average slasher sort of film, all killer bit of filler, but I actually quite enjoyed the ride on Freaky.
Body swapping isn't a new idea, Big did it, 13 Going On 30, Chucky... sort of. It's a comforting sort of base that gives you room for fun, and in this instance, serial killer and teenage girl was a pretty good combo.
One thing to beware of is that this film is very gory. The beginning starts off as your typical teen horror and moves into the slasher part quite quickly. It's over the top in that ridiculous way that takes away some of the horror factor, and that's how I like these sorts of movies.
When it comes to the acting we get a collection of typical teens, there was nothing that seemed out of place. Solid acting to the expected stereotypes and it absolutely didn't rock the boat.
Vince Vaughn as our menacing murderer was quite terrifying for the moments we saw him in that role. But of course he spent most of the film as Millie. On this point my brain automatically went to the Jack Black comparison in the Jumanji films. His rendition of a teenage girl was great, and Vaughn's was just okay. While both of these roles were over the top, Vaughn's performance was "almost but not quite" and didn't sit right in Freaky.
The flip side of this was Kathryn Newton as Millie. As actual Millie I can't really remember anything about the performance, but as The Butcher there was a definite nutter vibe terminating from her. I'm not sure how they worked on the characters, for Newton the only real guidance was "psycho killer", and I think that left room for a little leeway on this side of the swap.
I was pleased that they took things into consideration during the swap. The struggle of adapting to the bodies was clear and continually there, it wasn't forgotten for the sake of getting on with the story. Millie possessed by The Butcher has a great interaction with another character, and this point is a big focus and heavy on the anxiety to watch because you're caught between a rock and a hard place about what you want the outcome to be.
There is one part of the movie that really weirded me out, I'm sure you'll be able to identify it too so I won't spoil it here. But it didn't feel necessary, it achieved nothing, and felt like it was inserted to get a reaction out of the viewer... exactly as it has here.
Freaky has a good balance between thriller, horror and comedy, and despite the imbalance in the acting/characters I found it to be a great watch. The foreknowledge of the general outcome of a body swap film (because let's face it, we all know how they end) leaves you the time to enjoy the nuttiness of everything else.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/freaky-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
A Good, Maybe Very Good, But Not Great Sequel
Did you enjoy the first A QUIET PLACE film? This horror/thriller from 2018 was unique in that it emphasized the suspense portion of the horror genre while relying, heavily, on sound (or the lack thereof).
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Memento (2000) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
One of my favourite films
Film #5 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Memento
I have to admit, I may be a little biased when it comes to Memento. Christopher Nolan is my favourite director and Memento is both one of my favourite films of his and one of my favourite films of all time. For me, this undoubtedly deserves its place on this bucket list.
Memento is a 2000 psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man suffering from anterograde amnesia searching for the person responsible for the death of his wife, using notes and tattoos to organise his thoughts.
One of the most noticeable features of Memento is the fact that half of the narrative is told backwards. The movie begins at the end, focusing on a rather gruesome Polaroid photograph that fades rather than develops and a victim of a shooting coming back to life. The rest of the film jumps backwards a few minutes at a time, each scene ending where the last one started. For a film about memory loss and amnesia, this mechanism of telling the story really helps put us in Leonard’s shoes. It makes you feel as confused as he is. On the original dvd release, there was a hidden feature that allowed you to play the film in chronological order and this just didn’t have the same impact. These reverse scenes are interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Leonard earlier in his wife’s murder investigation and his life as an insurance investigator, which really help with the exposition. These paired together alongside a haunting score make for an intriguing and not your run of the mill murder mystery.
There are some great performances in this that also help increase the intrigue. Carrie-Anne Moss as the apparently helpful Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as the questionable sidekick appear new to Leonard every time they meet yet their loyalties and motives waver for us as the viewers throughout the film. And Guy Pearce manages to portray the frustrated and not as innocent as he first appears Leonard incredibly well, and holds this film on his own for most of the run time. They’re helped by a clever and smart script that flawlessly blends the sinister and rather dark criminal aspects of this with some surprisingly funny lines.
This story starts at the end so you don’t have to worry about how it turns out, but despite this Memento still comes up with a rather cracking twist and denouement. This entire film is about time and memory and how unreliable it is, and the lies we tell ourselves about our own identities. Even during this, what we thought we knew about Leonard as the black and white flashback meets the backwards story, is revealed to be completely unreliable and quite shocking. Without revealing too much, the outcome of this film is both surprising, sinister and rather emotional, and features some of the best dialogue of the entire movie. Leonard’s actions and motives revealed here and the final voiceover as he drives off makes for a hugely satisfying ending.
I first watched Memento in a psychology class at college around 17 years ago. I loved it then and in the years since, it hasn’t lost its appeal. Watching it back now still evokes the same emotion and feelings when the credits roll as it did all those years ago and will always be one of my favourite films, even possibly my all time favourite.
I have to admit, I may be a little biased when it comes to Memento. Christopher Nolan is my favourite director and Memento is both one of my favourite films of his and one of my favourite films of all time. For me, this undoubtedly deserves its place on this bucket list.
Memento is a 2000 psychological thriller starring Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man suffering from anterograde amnesia searching for the person responsible for the death of his wife, using notes and tattoos to organise his thoughts.
One of the most noticeable features of Memento is the fact that half of the narrative is told backwards. The movie begins at the end, focusing on a rather gruesome Polaroid photograph that fades rather than develops and a victim of a shooting coming back to life. The rest of the film jumps backwards a few minutes at a time, each scene ending where the last one started. For a film about memory loss and amnesia, this mechanism of telling the story really helps put us in Leonard’s shoes. It makes you feel as confused as he is. On the original dvd release, there was a hidden feature that allowed you to play the film in chronological order and this just didn’t have the same impact. These reverse scenes are interspersed with black and white flashbacks of Leonard earlier in his wife’s murder investigation and his life as an insurance investigator, which really help with the exposition. These paired together alongside a haunting score make for an intriguing and not your run of the mill murder mystery.
There are some great performances in this that also help increase the intrigue. Carrie-Anne Moss as the apparently helpful Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as the questionable sidekick appear new to Leonard every time they meet yet their loyalties and motives waver for us as the viewers throughout the film. And Guy Pearce manages to portray the frustrated and not as innocent as he first appears Leonard incredibly well, and holds this film on his own for most of the run time. They’re helped by a clever and smart script that flawlessly blends the sinister and rather dark criminal aspects of this with some surprisingly funny lines.
This story starts at the end so you don’t have to worry about how it turns out, but despite this Memento still comes up with a rather cracking twist and denouement. This entire film is about time and memory and how unreliable it is, and the lies we tell ourselves about our own identities. Even during this, what we thought we knew about Leonard as the black and white flashback meets the backwards story, is revealed to be completely unreliable and quite shocking. Without revealing too much, the outcome of this film is both surprising, sinister and rather emotional, and features some of the best dialogue of the entire movie. Leonard’s actions and motives revealed here and the final voiceover as he drives off makes for a hugely satisfying ending.
I first watched Memento in a psychology class at college around 17 years ago. I loved it then and in the years since, it hasn’t lost its appeal. Watching it back now still evokes the same emotion and feelings when the credits roll as it did all those years ago and will always be one of my favourite films, even possibly my all time favourite.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third and (at time of writing) the last Cloverfield film and it's main purpose is to explain where Clover and his friends come from. Does it do this in an easy to follow, straight forward way that fits easily into the already established Cloverfield universe? Hell no.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Every Time I Die (2019) in Movies
Oct 26, 2020
Not to be confused with No Time To Die, this indie supernatural thriller is lacking in big-budget polish and characters that you feel invested in, but manages to get by on an interesting concept and some sharp execution.
We begin with Sam (Drew Fonteiro), seeing what he sees as he gently blinks open his eyes to reveal Mia (Melissa Macedo) alongside him in bed. Sam has had a nightmare, and as he heads into the bathroom, he begins to experience an uncomfortable buzzing in his head, which leads to a blackout. When Sam comes around again, he’s crouched on the floor at work, with no memory as to how he arrived there. He’s wearing a paramedic uniform and holding a photo of two children, a brother and sister. On the back of the photo is written ‘remember Sara’.
Sam’s work colleague and friend, Jay (Marc Menchaca) invites Sam to join him and his wife Poppy (Michelle Macedo) at a lodge for the weekend. Poppy is the twin sister of Mia, who we saw in bed with Sam earlier and both Mia and her husband Tyler are also at the lodge. Tyler is a soldier, suffering from PTSD, and it’s clear that Sam and Mia have been having an affair behind his back, which now puts Sam in a bit of an awkward situation.
By this point, we’ve already witnessed Sam experiencing several more blackouts, including one while driving to the lodge. Each time, Sam has no recollection of what happened during the blackout, although a video recorded during one of the blackouts by his friends, shows that he does remain conscious and able to hold a conversation. Occasionally we get flashbacks and dream sequences which reveal that the brother and sister from the photo earlier are in fact Sam and his sister Sara, who drowned in a terrible accident when they were both children.
The first half of Every Time I Die is a slow, frustrating experience, not helped by the fact that the character of Sam is incredibly dull. Consequently, we feel no emotional connection to Sam, despite the childhood trauma he suffered and the turmoil he now experiences as an adult. Thankfully, the second half picks up when a jealous Tyler discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with Sam and murders Sam out by a lake in the forest. Thanks to the first-person perspective that was utilised earlier, we discover that Sam then transferred into the body of friend Jay, and must now try and convince his friends what Tyler has done. Not an easy task when Jay has a history of mental illness, leading the others to believe he’s had a relapse.
From there, Every Time I Die is just a roller coaster ride of clever ideas and twists, constantly dragged down by further flashbacks and confusing dream sequences, which are meant to help us and Sam understand what happened to him and his sister, but repeatedly stall the narrative momentum instead.
That being said, for the most part, I really enjoyed Every Time I Die. Aside from the slow first half, and the character of Sam, it’s well written, well crafted and with a satisfying, heart-warming finale.
We begin with Sam (Drew Fonteiro), seeing what he sees as he gently blinks open his eyes to reveal Mia (Melissa Macedo) alongside him in bed. Sam has had a nightmare, and as he heads into the bathroom, he begins to experience an uncomfortable buzzing in his head, which leads to a blackout. When Sam comes around again, he’s crouched on the floor at work, with no memory as to how he arrived there. He’s wearing a paramedic uniform and holding a photo of two children, a brother and sister. On the back of the photo is written ‘remember Sara’.
Sam’s work colleague and friend, Jay (Marc Menchaca) invites Sam to join him and his wife Poppy (Michelle Macedo) at a lodge for the weekend. Poppy is the twin sister of Mia, who we saw in bed with Sam earlier and both Mia and her husband Tyler are also at the lodge. Tyler is a soldier, suffering from PTSD, and it’s clear that Sam and Mia have been having an affair behind his back, which now puts Sam in a bit of an awkward situation.
By this point, we’ve already witnessed Sam experiencing several more blackouts, including one while driving to the lodge. Each time, Sam has no recollection of what happened during the blackout, although a video recorded during one of the blackouts by his friends, shows that he does remain conscious and able to hold a conversation. Occasionally we get flashbacks and dream sequences which reveal that the brother and sister from the photo earlier are in fact Sam and his sister Sara, who drowned in a terrible accident when they were both children.
The first half of Every Time I Die is a slow, frustrating experience, not helped by the fact that the character of Sam is incredibly dull. Consequently, we feel no emotional connection to Sam, despite the childhood trauma he suffered and the turmoil he now experiences as an adult. Thankfully, the second half picks up when a jealous Tyler discovers that his wife has been cheating on him with Sam and murders Sam out by a lake in the forest. Thanks to the first-person perspective that was utilised earlier, we discover that Sam then transferred into the body of friend Jay, and must now try and convince his friends what Tyler has done. Not an easy task when Jay has a history of mental illness, leading the others to believe he’s had a relapse.
From there, Every Time I Die is just a roller coaster ride of clever ideas and twists, constantly dragged down by further flashbacks and confusing dream sequences, which are meant to help us and Sam understand what happened to him and his sister, but repeatedly stall the narrative momentum instead.
That being said, for the most part, I really enjoyed Every Time I Die. Aside from the slow first half, and the character of Sam, it’s well written, well crafted and with a satisfying, heart-warming finale.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fatman (2020) in Movies
Dec 21, 2020
I'll level with you on this one, I had no idea what I was in for, but Mel Gibson as a crazed looking Santa had me sold, so I went ahead a brought this one on DVD.
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Eternal Code (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
Characters – Corey is a homeless suicidal war veteran, he keeps to himself and when he gets given money, he spends the money on helping the fellow homeless, being friendly with lonely older men in the park and helping somebody in danger. He will get a chance to use his skills once again to help a teenage girl who is being hunted down by criminals, his skills will help make him deadly to anyone who crosses his path. Oliver is the leader of the project, he wants to continue using it for his own good, which means he will go to the extremes to make sure it gets done. Charlie is one of the criminals that has taken the family members, she along with her team are solely in this for the money. Mark is the husband of Bridget, he tries to advice, even though he will only support her decision. Bridget is the woman that has invented a revolutionary idea, which she doesn’t want used for the wrong thing, her pulling the plug has set about the events including her kidnapping.
Performances – This is a movie that does try to use the biggest names to sale the movie, Scout Taylor-Compton being the biggest name in the film, even though she is mostly just a criminal thug, she doesn’t give us a bad performance, just she isn’t really a main character. Damien Chinappi would be one of the leads in the film as the he does bring us a performance that does fit the action side of the film, where we do feel sympathy for his character. Richard Tyson will always make for a great villain and this is no different. When we look at the rest of the cast, we see solid performances across the board.
Story – The story here follows the events of a kidnapping which takes a turn, when a war veteran looks to help the helpless, while a corrupt businessman looks to complete a project which will change everything as we know it in the world. When it comes to the idea of the kidnapping side of the story, we do get a nice spin on how everything unfolds, making it truly unpredictable with what will happen next. While that is a good thing, it can mean we do meet a couple of too many characters, which doesn’t let other get flushed out enough. We are left with seeing just how dealing with inventions will see people looking for greed, while seeing a war veteran getting another shot to prove himself in combat is nice to see.
Action – The action is restricted, but it does show how the conflicts are meant to be edgy and more in the shadows which is better to watch for the tone.
Settings – The film is set in and around one city which shows how the minds in it would operate, we see how the project would be secretly locked away from the world and see how the criminals will act in the shadows of abandoned locations.
Scene of the Movie – Corey military trained scenes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like we have a few too many characters at time.
Final Thoughts – This is an action thriller that does have a lot of direction you wouldn’t normally see, it does keep us guessing despite having a couple of characters we don’t need to have.
Overall: Action film that goes down different paves.
Performances – This is a movie that does try to use the biggest names to sale the movie, Scout Taylor-Compton being the biggest name in the film, even though she is mostly just a criminal thug, she doesn’t give us a bad performance, just she isn’t really a main character. Damien Chinappi would be one of the leads in the film as the he does bring us a performance that does fit the action side of the film, where we do feel sympathy for his character. Richard Tyson will always make for a great villain and this is no different. When we look at the rest of the cast, we see solid performances across the board.
Story – The story here follows the events of a kidnapping which takes a turn, when a war veteran looks to help the helpless, while a corrupt businessman looks to complete a project which will change everything as we know it in the world. When it comes to the idea of the kidnapping side of the story, we do get a nice spin on how everything unfolds, making it truly unpredictable with what will happen next. While that is a good thing, it can mean we do meet a couple of too many characters, which doesn’t let other get flushed out enough. We are left with seeing just how dealing with inventions will see people looking for greed, while seeing a war veteran getting another shot to prove himself in combat is nice to see.
Action – The action is restricted, but it does show how the conflicts are meant to be edgy and more in the shadows which is better to watch for the tone.
Settings – The film is set in and around one city which shows how the minds in it would operate, we see how the project would be secretly locked away from the world and see how the criminals will act in the shadows of abandoned locations.
Scene of the Movie – Corey military trained scenes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like we have a few too many characters at time.
Final Thoughts – This is an action thriller that does have a lot of direction you wouldn’t normally see, it does keep us guessing despite having a couple of characters we don’t need to have.
Overall: Action film that goes down different paves.