Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Sep 23, 2019
Take the Movie, Leave the Villain
It’s been some time since the catastrophe at the original Jurassic Park. Despite all of that, the powers that be have decided to monetize the dinosaurs and move forward with a plan to open the amusement park Jurassic World. Spoiler Alert: Chaos ensues. I was so excited when I learned the Jurassic Park franchise was being revitalized. I think that excitement may have turned into a bit of bias my first go round with Jurassic World as the second trip was a little more bumpy.
Acting: 10
A lot of times I will watch a movie and say, “This movie wouldn’t have been the same without X”. Chris Pratt was hands-down that actor. He plays Owen Grady, raptor trainer and overall badass. He offers some hilarity to a situation so crazy you kind of have to laugh at it. Speaking of comedic performances, Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus had me all the way cracking up. Their chemistry throughout was perfect.
Beginning: 3
This is the first point where this movie failed me a bit. This series has been known for its strong beginnings up to this point. It was almost as if the scriptwriters expected us to be entertained off of the series name alone. Wish there had been a little more “try” here.
Characters: 8
While I appreciated Owen’s character, there were a couple that just didn’t do it for me. Vic Hoskins (Vincent D’Onofrio) is the villain of the film. You know the type, someone that’s basically just there to be a roadblock. He was over-the-top aggressive and made the movie a bit of a nuisance at times.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Always a shining spot in this franchise. The park is captured magically from its rollercoasters to its extravagant hotel, the kind of place you would want to visit. I particularly love when they feed a shark on a stick to a titanic water dino who splashes just about everyone in the audience when he returns to the water. The final fight between the T-Rex and the “new breed” is fun to watch unfold.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
Pace: 7
The pace is somewhat slower than what I’m accustomed to with these movies. There is a lot of talking and walking around and you can’t help but wonder when the action is going to kick in again. Even when shit finally does hit the fan, there were a few moments of exposition I wish they would have done without.
Plot: 5
I can’t, for the life of me, begin to understand just why the hell anyone would think creating a park was a good idea. Then you had the military wanting to weaponize dinosaurs and some creature they made in a lab? Pick a lane, please! It’s a wonder I still managed to have a good time despite the craziness of the story.
Resolution: 8
Overall: 74
Jurassic World isn’t bad by any means. I do feel that it had great potential to do more and ultimately mean more. It’s merely satisfied with being a summer blockbuster which is fine. Just don’t expect it to go down as an all-time great.
Acting: 10
A lot of times I will watch a movie and say, “This movie wouldn’t have been the same without X”. Chris Pratt was hands-down that actor. He plays Owen Grady, raptor trainer and overall badass. He offers some hilarity to a situation so crazy you kind of have to laugh at it. Speaking of comedic performances, Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus had me all the way cracking up. Their chemistry throughout was perfect.
Beginning: 3
This is the first point where this movie failed me a bit. This series has been known for its strong beginnings up to this point. It was almost as if the scriptwriters expected us to be entertained off of the series name alone. Wish there had been a little more “try” here.
Characters: 8
While I appreciated Owen’s character, there were a couple that just didn’t do it for me. Vic Hoskins (Vincent D’Onofrio) is the villain of the film. You know the type, someone that’s basically just there to be a roadblock. He was over-the-top aggressive and made the movie a bit of a nuisance at times.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Always a shining spot in this franchise. The park is captured magically from its rollercoasters to its extravagant hotel, the kind of place you would want to visit. I particularly love when they feed a shark on a stick to a titanic water dino who splashes just about everyone in the audience when he returns to the water. The final fight between the T-Rex and the “new breed” is fun to watch unfold.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 6
Pace: 7
The pace is somewhat slower than what I’m accustomed to with these movies. There is a lot of talking and walking around and you can’t help but wonder when the action is going to kick in again. Even when shit finally does hit the fan, there were a few moments of exposition I wish they would have done without.
Plot: 5
I can’t, for the life of me, begin to understand just why the hell anyone would think creating a park was a good idea. Then you had the military wanting to weaponize dinosaurs and some creature they made in a lab? Pick a lane, please! It’s a wonder I still managed to have a good time despite the craziness of the story.
Resolution: 8
Overall: 74
Jurassic World isn’t bad by any means. I do feel that it had great potential to do more and ultimately mean more. It’s merely satisfied with being a summer blockbuster which is fine. Just don’t expect it to go down as an all-time great.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Go Cam DVR 757HD in Tech
Oct 14, 2019
We’ve all heard the old adage that “Big things come in small packages”, and in today’s technological world it couldn’t be truer. Vivitar, a brand known for their incredible camera equipment are set out to prove that big things DO come in small packages, and with a price tag to match with it’s Vivitar Go Cam DVR 757HD.
The Vivitar Go Cam is packaged in a small clam-shell style plastic and contains everything one would need to make this one of the most versatile “go” style cameras on the market today. The camera itself is minuscule in size at only roughly 6” (W) X 4.5” (L) X 2” (D) you can easily slide it into your pocket and take it with you wherever you go. It offers a 12-megapixel picture and is advertised as being waterproof, dust proof, freeze proof and shock proof. Amazingly outside of getting just the camera itself you also get an assortment of mounts that come with it. Everything from a bicycle and helmet mount are here in addition to a car mount (to utilize the camera as a dash cam). The fact that all mounts that you could conceivably want come bundle with the camera is a huge plus.
The camera records it’s video on micro SD cards and includes a built-in rechargeable Lithium-ion battery that can be charged (or powered) via a micro USB port on the side. The charging cable and a silicon sleeve to place around the camera are also included.
I took the camera with me to San Diego Comic-con this year to wear it around and take live video footage of the crowds while shopping for my exclusives, and also took some still photos just to see how it compares to something that is far pricier like my iPhone. For a camera in its size and price-point (MSRP $29.99) it did surprisingly well capturing footage on the go (important for walking around but extremely important when in use as a dash cam). The picture, while certainly not as crisp as a much more pricey camera, was certainly serviceable and still enjoyable. The still shots were a little grainy, but far better than some more expensive cameras I’ve seen in the past. The portability is something that particularly comes in handy when you simply want to take a camera out of your pocket and take a quick shot of something.
The Vivitar Go Cam DVR 757HD is an incredible value for what you get with it. While it certainly can’t compete quality-wise with exponentially more expensive cameras, it comes with everything a budding videographer might want to use to start out with. If you are someone who is looking to casually record your bike rides or are looking for a lower cost option in dash cams, this is a camera worth trying out. I certainly would recommend buying this camera over a far more expensive one if you aren’t sure how often you will use it, and honestly with it’s 12MP and HD quality video you might just realize that you don’t need anything more than this. You certainly can do far worse for far more money and it’s inexpensive enough that the whole family could have one and embrace the trail together.
The Vivitar Go Cam is packaged in a small clam-shell style plastic and contains everything one would need to make this one of the most versatile “go” style cameras on the market today. The camera itself is minuscule in size at only roughly 6” (W) X 4.5” (L) X 2” (D) you can easily slide it into your pocket and take it with you wherever you go. It offers a 12-megapixel picture and is advertised as being waterproof, dust proof, freeze proof and shock proof. Amazingly outside of getting just the camera itself you also get an assortment of mounts that come with it. Everything from a bicycle and helmet mount are here in addition to a car mount (to utilize the camera as a dash cam). The fact that all mounts that you could conceivably want come bundle with the camera is a huge plus.
The camera records it’s video on micro SD cards and includes a built-in rechargeable Lithium-ion battery that can be charged (or powered) via a micro USB port on the side. The charging cable and a silicon sleeve to place around the camera are also included.
I took the camera with me to San Diego Comic-con this year to wear it around and take live video footage of the crowds while shopping for my exclusives, and also took some still photos just to see how it compares to something that is far pricier like my iPhone. For a camera in its size and price-point (MSRP $29.99) it did surprisingly well capturing footage on the go (important for walking around but extremely important when in use as a dash cam). The picture, while certainly not as crisp as a much more pricey camera, was certainly serviceable and still enjoyable. The still shots were a little grainy, but far better than some more expensive cameras I’ve seen in the past. The portability is something that particularly comes in handy when you simply want to take a camera out of your pocket and take a quick shot of something.
The Vivitar Go Cam DVR 757HD is an incredible value for what you get with it. While it certainly can’t compete quality-wise with exponentially more expensive cameras, it comes with everything a budding videographer might want to use to start out with. If you are someone who is looking to casually record your bike rides or are looking for a lower cost option in dash cams, this is a camera worth trying out. I certainly would recommend buying this camera over a far more expensive one if you aren’t sure how often you will use it, and honestly with it’s 12MP and HD quality video you might just realize that you don’t need anything more than this. You certainly can do far worse for far more money and it’s inexpensive enough that the whole family could have one and embrace the trail together.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Killing Ground (2016) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Story: Killing Ground starts when couple Ian (Meadows) and Samantha (Dyer) head off for a romantic camping trip, learning they are not the only couple on the grounds they look to stay out of the others way, only to never see them return to their grounds. Scotty (Pedersen) and Tood (Glenane) are two locals of the area that come off shady, also have had run ins with the law.
We know something happened to the family in the camp next door and when Ian and Samantha find their baby wandering around the area. Soon they will be fighting for their lives against the criminal psychopaths that enjoy hunting.
Thoughts on Killing Ground
Characters – Ian is a doctor who along with his girlfriend goes on the camping trip, he knows how to survive any injuries which makes him the one that could help survive the attack because o his logical decision making process. Samantha is the girlfriend that is using the trip for a big moment only to find herself needing to fight to survive. Scotty is the one of the two which seems to be the mastermind, well leader of the two who knows how to control the situation and Tood. Tood is the loose cannon, who comes off simple minded at times and other times he comes off like the psychopath he is meant to be.
Performances – The performances in this film do come off real, we believe the couple Ian Meadows & Harriet Dyer with each decision they must make, we also get scared of both the Aaron’s who gives us uneasy performances through the whole film.
Story – The story here follows three lines to start with, we have the couple heading of to their romantic camping trip, the family on their camping trip, that we know something happens to and the two men who will be committing the crime. To start with this felt annoying, I won’t lie, but soon this just builds the tension through the film as we just want to know what happens, with each twist that connection the stories becoming unsettling. We see the aftermath of what has happened over just putting us through the events, which only continues to make everything extra disturbing. This is a type of story we have seen before, though the fresh approach to this only makes this more interesting to watch even if you want to look away.
Horror – This is easily one of the most disturbing horror films you will see, when you stop to think about anything that happens, what you end up feeling is just uneasy because of what happens off camera, with the tension only making this harder to get through.
Settings – The film takes place in a remote camping ground which gives us the feeling of isolation, with have no phone signal and the humans might not be the only danger here, this is a perfect use of setting.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make each moment look more horrific, they are subtle and effective.
Scene of the Movie – When the couple plan to leave, we have a wonderful shot of Samantha walking away with somebody desperately needing help behind her.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the opening moments of the three stories, it does work once we are get going.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most disturbing non-graphic films I have seen, being left to imagine just what happens is even worse than watching it.
Overall: Unsettling and disturbing.
We know something happened to the family in the camp next door and when Ian and Samantha find their baby wandering around the area. Soon they will be fighting for their lives against the criminal psychopaths that enjoy hunting.
Thoughts on Killing Ground
Characters – Ian is a doctor who along with his girlfriend goes on the camping trip, he knows how to survive any injuries which makes him the one that could help survive the attack because o his logical decision making process. Samantha is the girlfriend that is using the trip for a big moment only to find herself needing to fight to survive. Scotty is the one of the two which seems to be the mastermind, well leader of the two who knows how to control the situation and Tood. Tood is the loose cannon, who comes off simple minded at times and other times he comes off like the psychopath he is meant to be.
Performances – The performances in this film do come off real, we believe the couple Ian Meadows & Harriet Dyer with each decision they must make, we also get scared of both the Aaron’s who gives us uneasy performances through the whole film.
Story – The story here follows three lines to start with, we have the couple heading of to their romantic camping trip, the family on their camping trip, that we know something happens to and the two men who will be committing the crime. To start with this felt annoying, I won’t lie, but soon this just builds the tension through the film as we just want to know what happens, with each twist that connection the stories becoming unsettling. We see the aftermath of what has happened over just putting us through the events, which only continues to make everything extra disturbing. This is a type of story we have seen before, though the fresh approach to this only makes this more interesting to watch even if you want to look away.
Horror – This is easily one of the most disturbing horror films you will see, when you stop to think about anything that happens, what you end up feeling is just uneasy because of what happens off camera, with the tension only making this harder to get through.
Settings – The film takes place in a remote camping ground which gives us the feeling of isolation, with have no phone signal and the humans might not be the only danger here, this is a perfect use of setting.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make each moment look more horrific, they are subtle and effective.
Scene of the Movie – When the couple plan to leave, we have a wonderful shot of Samantha walking away with somebody desperately needing help behind her.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the opening moments of the three stories, it does work once we are get going.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most disturbing non-graphic films I have seen, being left to imagine just what happens is even worse than watching it.
Overall: Unsettling and disturbing.
Buienradar
Weather and Travel
App
***PLEASE NOTE: THIS APP IS ONLY AVAILABLE IN THE DUTCH LANGUAGE*** Trying to avoid walking straight...
Sync for FitBit - Fitbit to Apple Health
Health & Fitness
App
Sync for Fitbit downloads your Fitbit history from Fitbit.com and stores it on your iPhone in...
Adobe Comp CC
Productivity and Photo & Video
App
Voted “App Store Best of 2015” by Apple! Lay out an idea with real assets like photos, text,...
Bangkok Travel Guide and Offline City Map
Travel and Navigation
App
Offline Maps and much more! Discover new places and insider tips. Collect, save and organize them...