Search
Search results
Ross (3282 KP) rated Death Note (2017) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
The delivery (2 more)
The visual effects
Willem Dafoe
This premise had so much potential: the ability to write someone's name in a book and how they would die and then just watch it happen. Awesome.
However, this was wrongly painted as some sort of poisoned chalice and would lead the beholder to madness. If this was to be because of Ryuk's presence then this wasn't really carried out all that well. If it was meant to be "power corrupts" etc then it just didn't ring true for me.
I can't see someone spend all their spare time researching people's crimes and having them killed, maybe one or two but then they'd put the book away and think about it another time.
I watched the first half hour quite avidly but then just got bored.
It also felt like they had tried to retain too much of the anime spirit in the American movie - Ryuk's voice, provided by Willem Dafoe is like a bad English dub for a Japanese original, the father is not at all representative of a Western father, and L just came across as a strange Japanese Anime character rather than a teenage genius detective (I almost expected him close his eyes and do a big shoulder-lifting laugh every so often). I wouldn't have been surprised if Meowth had appeared at one point and made an oddly worded quip.
However, this was wrongly painted as some sort of poisoned chalice and would lead the beholder to madness. If this was to be because of Ryuk's presence then this wasn't really carried out all that well. If it was meant to be "power corrupts" etc then it just didn't ring true for me.
I can't see someone spend all their spare time researching people's crimes and having them killed, maybe one or two but then they'd put the book away and think about it another time.
I watched the first half hour quite avidly but then just got bored.
It also felt like they had tried to retain too much of the anime spirit in the American movie - Ryuk's voice, provided by Willem Dafoe is like a bad English dub for a Japanese original, the father is not at all representative of a Western father, and L just came across as a strange Japanese Anime character rather than a teenage genius detective (I almost expected him close his eyes and do a big shoulder-lifting laugh every so often). I wouldn't have been surprised if Meowth had appeared at one point and made an oddly worded quip.
Jim Jarmusch recommended American Psycho (2000) in Movies (curated)
Erika (17788 KP) rated At Eternity's Gate (2018) in Movies
Dec 9, 2018
Willem Dafoe is TOO OLD to be Vincent (1 more)
Accents?!?!
I did have high expectations going into this film, Van Gogh is my favorite painter. The direction was... interesting. There was a lot of shaky-cam work, and I understood that the director was trying to depict things as slightly confused because it was supposed to be from Vincent's point-of-view, but, I don't think it was effective in the end. I liked Rupert Friend as Theo, and Oscar Isaac as Gauguin, and they were close to the actual ages of the characters. BUT, I had a problem with a 60+ year old actor playing Vincent, who was only 37 when he passed away. Dafoe did well at portraying a slightly-off Vincent, but he just looked way too old for me. And finally, the accents. Theo and Vincent had strange American accents? I'm not sure why they didn't opt for Dutch accents? It was very weird, and almost to the point of distracting.
In the end, this film was just ok, and I'm glad I used Regal points for the ticket, and not my own money.
In the end, this film was just ok, and I'm glad I used Regal points for the ticket, and not my own money.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 26, 2021
Big Parker Energy
The trilogy of Tom Holland’s Spider-Man, has all been leading to this: An all-out battle resulting from a broken spell that Dr. Strange tried to cast. Let’s get this out of the way now: There will be zero spoilers in this review. Let’s also get this out of the way: You are going to love this movie.
Acting: 10
Stakes are extremely high here which could fall short on screen with weaker performances from the cast. The crew doesn’t disappoint here, both new and old. Tom Holland and Zendaya give you absolute gold, both during the high times and especially the low. I haven’t gotten this emotional over a Spider-Man movie since 2004’s Spider-Man 2.
But Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe. It felt like he was playing with an entirely different set of cards, all Aces. His performance was hands-down one of the best I’ve seen in a superhero film and one of the best I’ve seen all year. I absolutely couldn’t get enough of the impact he brought to this movie. Definitely brings the emotion out of you.
Beginning: 8
The movie picks up right where Far From Home leaves off. If you remember what happened at the end of that one, you will recognize that the third allows them to jump right into the conflict. Things start quickly, but not quite perfectly. I know this can be a challenge to do, but I’m wondering if they could have used the first ten minutes to cut to the meat of the story quicker. As it stands, it did take a bit of time for things to pick up.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
I haven’t been this satisfied with superhero action scenes since Avengers: Endgame. Man oh man, I wish I could say more but just know this: If you came to see some hardcore webslinging action, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. Everything is high stakes when you have a multitude of baddies involved. If the action wasn’t enough, you get taken on an emotional rollercoaster as Peter Parker is faced with a number of tough decisions throughout the movie.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
Plot: 7
Perhaps the only thing that could have used just a tad bit of a brushup here. Mind you, this is off of one watch, so I could feel a bit differently if I go back and watch again. Then again, my motto is always, “If I can’t understand it the first time…” Yes, there is a lot to take in here and there are some things the film will ask you to take on face value. To me, the characters got on board with the craziness of what was happening a little too easily for my taste. Definitely could have been a bit more development there. For what it’s worth, the story was mostly solid and moved in fluid fashion.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 92
I don’t always enjoy writing reviews, even when it’s a good one. Here I am at the end of my Spider-Man: No Way Home review and there is so much more that I want to say. Some movies are impactful, others iconic. This one is damn near legendary. Phenomenal job by director Jon Watts who is quickly becoming a legend in my eyes.
Acting: 10
Stakes are extremely high here which could fall short on screen with weaker performances from the cast. The crew doesn’t disappoint here, both new and old. Tom Holland and Zendaya give you absolute gold, both during the high times and especially the low. I haven’t gotten this emotional over a Spider-Man movie since 2004’s Spider-Man 2.
But Willem Dafoe. Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe, Willem Dafoe. It felt like he was playing with an entirely different set of cards, all Aces. His performance was hands-down one of the best I’ve seen in a superhero film and one of the best I’ve seen all year. I absolutely couldn’t get enough of the impact he brought to this movie. Definitely brings the emotion out of you.
Beginning: 8
The movie picks up right where Far From Home leaves off. If you remember what happened at the end of that one, you will recognize that the third allows them to jump right into the conflict. Things start quickly, but not quite perfectly. I know this can be a challenge to do, but I’m wondering if they could have used the first ten minutes to cut to the meat of the story quicker. As it stands, it did take a bit of time for things to pick up.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
I haven’t been this satisfied with superhero action scenes since Avengers: Endgame. Man oh man, I wish I could say more but just know this: If you came to see some hardcore webslinging action, you will not be disappointed in the slightest. Everything is high stakes when you have a multitude of baddies involved. If the action wasn’t enough, you get taken on an emotional rollercoaster as Peter Parker is faced with a number of tough decisions throughout the movie.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
Plot: 7
Perhaps the only thing that could have used just a tad bit of a brushup here. Mind you, this is off of one watch, so I could feel a bit differently if I go back and watch again. Then again, my motto is always, “If I can’t understand it the first time…” Yes, there is a lot to take in here and there are some things the film will ask you to take on face value. To me, the characters got on board with the craziness of what was happening a little too easily for my taste. Definitely could have been a bit more development there. For what it’s worth, the story was mostly solid and moved in fluid fashion.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 92
I don’t always enjoy writing reviews, even when it’s a good one. Here I am at the end of my Spider-Man: No Way Home review and there is so much more that I want to say. Some movies are impactful, others iconic. This one is damn near legendary. Phenomenal job by director Jon Watts who is quickly becoming a legend in my eyes.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Aug 31, 2020 (Updated Aug 31, 2020)
The Definition of Insanity
The Lighthouse- is a psychological twisted film. What is one's sanity? How far can one's sanity go? How long can you stand one's sanity? All those questions and more, the Lighthouse is one twisted movie that will leave you questioning your own sanity. If you were stuck on a island inside a lighthouse with one person, would you trust that person? Whould you two start to go insane? I just love the concept and both Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe do a excellent job.
The Plot: Two lighthouse keepers try to maintain their sanity while living on a remote and mysterious New England island in the 1890s.
The film was shot in black-and-white with a nearly square 1.19:1 aspect ratio. Which makes it more intresting.
The Lighthouse is a must see horror film.
The Plot: Two lighthouse keepers try to maintain their sanity while living on a remote and mysterious New England island in the 1890s.
The film was shot in black-and-white with a nearly square 1.19:1 aspect ratio. Which makes it more intresting.
The Lighthouse is a must see horror film.
Barry Newman (204 KP) rated Antichrist (2009) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
What the hell did I just watch? Lars Von Trier at his most deliberately controversial and one truly fucked up film. An un-named couple work through the grief of losing their son and the guilt they feel over the circumstances of his death by going absolutely batshit crazy in the woods. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg do the best they can and their performances are fine , it’s the material that’s the problem . The first hour is deathly dull and the final 40 minutes consists of graphic violence, bizarre imagery, a talking fox and a bit of genital mutilation thrown in for good measure.The film as a whole is a mess and just doesn’t work , it wants to be arty and clever but feels like it’s just trying to shock for the hell of it. I didn’t enjoy any of this movie and would die a happy man if I never saw this again.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clear and Present Danger (1994) in Movies
May 15, 2020
The Cover-Up
Clear and Present Danger- is a thriller pacted movie. It has action, suspense and drama. Its downfall its long and somewhat boring and waits a while to get to the action. The action is also decent, not as good as patriot games.
The plot: Agent Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) becomes acting deputy director of the CIA when Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones) is diagnosed with cancer. When an American businessman, and friend of the president, is murdered on a yacht, Ryan starts discovering links between the man and drug dealers. As CIA agent John Clark (Willem Dafoe) is sent to Colombia to kill drug kingpins in retaliation, Ryan must fight through multiple cover-ups to figure out what happened and who's responsible.
Harrison Ford is excellent as Jack Ryan. He is the best Jack Ryan in my opinon. He nails Jack Ryan perfectly.
Clear and Present Danger- is a decent thriller with the only downfall is it being a little long and boring.
The plot: Agent Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) becomes acting deputy director of the CIA when Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones) is diagnosed with cancer. When an American businessman, and friend of the president, is murdered on a yacht, Ryan starts discovering links between the man and drug dealers. As CIA agent John Clark (Willem Dafoe) is sent to Colombia to kill drug kingpins in retaliation, Ryan must fight through multiple cover-ups to figure out what happened and who's responsible.
Harrison Ford is excellent as Jack Ryan. He is the best Jack Ryan in my opinon. He nails Jack Ryan perfectly.
Clear and Present Danger- is a decent thriller with the only downfall is it being a little long and boring.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
In the not too distant future, the majority of the population are vampires and the world has been modified to adjust to the daylight. Remaining humans are "farmed" for blood, but the supply is running thin and the human race is on the verge of extinction. Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a hematologist that works at Bromley Marks, the empire of Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), and is put in charge of finding a blood substitute, but has come up empty handed up until this point. Dalton is convinced that the vampire race has its work cut out for them with the blood supply being so low. He runs into a small group of humans one night at work and is eventually introduced to Lionel "Elvis" Cormac (Willem Dafoe), a former vampire who has something better than a blood substitute; a cure. Now Dalton finds himself risking everything on an experimental treatment that could be the key to saving mankind.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
Daybreakers had all the ingredients of a film that should be loved by any horror fan. First and foremost, it's a new vampire movie that isn't Twilight. On top of that, it's R-rated so it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to blood and gore (and trust me, there's quite a bit). It also offers a bit of a new twist on what was otherwise exhausted when it comes to stories relating to vampires. With all that being said, however, it still wasn't as good as it should have been.
It was great to see Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill not only as part of the cast, but also both have decent amounts of screen time. Sam Neill was in John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, which is a favorite of mine that managed to make me a fan of the Irish actor. Willem Dafoe just seems underrated and doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not that his role in this will really change anyone's minds regarding him as a great actor or anything, but that's jumping the gun a bit. The story is the film's strong point, but is still pretty flawed. Humans being farmed for blood and dying out is a great concept. The cure is rather different and unique than what you've become used to in vampire films, which lead to an interesting third act. The ending is probably where the film could potentially make someone dislike the film. Not everyone is going to like the finale, but it was a nice change of pace to not have the same recycled storyline or ending for once.
Regarding the acting though, there isn't much of it. Willem Dafoe shows a little personality and has a one-liner or two that will get a few laughs. Sam Neill also shows some signs of life and fits the role as the main villain of the film rather well. Every other character felt rather flat and showed no depth at all. While the blood used in the film was a fantastic color, some of the special effects seemed rather cheesy at times. Mainly the scene where a vampire is hanging from the ceiling fighting Ethan Hawke and his brother comes to mind. The cuts were quick, which seemed to try and cover up the fact, but it still stuck out. That may be nitpicking a bit since it was pretty top notch the rest of the time. The Underworld films (at least the first two) come to mind as they left the same kind of bitter aftertaste and seemed to suffer similar problems.
It's a shame Daybreakers didn't live up to its potential. It contains a strong cast and delivers an original take on something that's been associated with horror for nearly 200 years. The acting is what seems to hurt the film the most though since the way everyone says their lines makes it seem like they don't want to be there. It's still worth viewing, but you may want to rent before buying. In all honesty, it may be worth supporting just to get an R-rated vampire film a bit more recognition and slightly dim the spotlight currently shining on whatever teenage vampire franchise is currently taking off for whatever reason.
InfernalNinja (49 KP) rated Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in Movies
Dec 19, 2021
Return of the most of the Raimi villains! (3 more)
Willem Dafoe steals every scene he's in, as usual!
Interesting story
Fixes alot of the problems I had with Tom Holland's Spider Man
They did it! Finally made 3 awesome consecutive Spider Man movies!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Was worried this movie's hype train would be it's demise. Wrong. They somehow managed to fix all 3 Spider Man franchises in one movie . I was super excited to see the return of Tobey and Andrew, although I do wish they would've been able to keep it a surprise. Unfortunately, that has proven time and time again to be very difficult to do in this day and age. I don't hold that against them. It was still a very awesome aspect of the movie. Most of the Raimi villains' actors seemed to slip right back into character, even after all these years. It was quite a ride from start to finish. While the ending was a bit expected, I can't imagine any other ending working, and I didn't see all aspects of it coming 100%. Do yourself a favor and see this movie!
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.