Search
Search results
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Laggies (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Laggies is a film that I walked into open minded and a little bit excited where they might take the storyline. As a millennial, I can relate to Keira Knightley’s character Megan as she is approaching 30 and she does not really have any clear direction in life. So when her boyfriend proposes, she freaks out and escapes for a week with her new 16 year old friend and her father. Believable, however rather than this film deciding to become something more akin to 2004’s Garden State, it instead abruptly turns in a “Hollywood” direction, badly.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
While watching Laggies, I realized it has some pacing issues. At a 99 minute runtime it felt closer to two hours than a quick and entertaining story it should have been. While walking out the theater I thought that was the intent of the film and was a bit forgiving. Megan doesn’t exactly know where her life is going and neither do we. However as the days passed after watching this film, I realized these pacing issues made like this film less and less each day.
As the days passed, something else I realized was that Keira Knightley is not a leading lady. Her performance was boring, uninteresting and at times unlikable for a character that could have had layers, but did not. It made it hard to understand why she was doing the things that she was doing and why she ultimately comes to the conclusions she does. She seems like she is a 14 year old girl who “doesn’t talk” and we are supposed to look at her “British” smile and understand her without any acting to shed insight on her thoughts, which is actually annoying.
However her younger counter part, Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick Ass), shows yet again how she is a strong up and coming actress who has a good range already. She is believable as self-reflective and brooding 16 year old who is hoping and looking for something more for herself and her father played by Sam Rockwell (Moon). Rockwell reminds audiences yet again how solid an actor he is. He is actually the brightest star in this film as he steals every scene he is in and even manages to elevate Knightley to be likeable and attractive.
In the end, this film is not worth the full price of admission. It is more of a red box or film you may pause and watch when it comes on cable. Moretz and Rockwell are the bright spots of this film and fans of them may want to check this out, however Knightley is not a leading lady and this film suffers from her poor performance and an abruptly Hollywood script.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Friended To Death (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Actress turned filmmaker Sarah Smick might well be the next Nicole Sullivan should fortune smile upon her. Not many people will have seen her debut film, Old Souls, but if Friended to Death is any indication, she shows that she has the chops to create satire. Although her second film is not entirely perfect, it shows that she does have a lot to say in a screenplay that examines friendship in the real life sense.
Ryan Hansen (Zach McGowan, Veronica Mars) is a terrific actor, and he plays the perfect narcissistic jerk. As Michael Harris, he’s unsympathetic to everyone he knows, including his new mate Emil (Zach McGowan, Shameless) whom he treats poorly.
Harris is more obsessive with telling his Facebook friends what is going on in his day-to-day life. But when he gets fired from his job as a traffic cop, just what does he do next? He definitely does not go crying to his mom about it. Instead, he hatches a plot to fake his death (with the help of Emil) and look online to see who will miss him.
No one. This movie is not about saying how terrible and unsympathetic people are. Instead, it reveals that one can not treat social media as the end all be all of how relationships are defined. The screenplay is well thought out to show a hyperbole of extremes. Harris is more obsessed with what is said online than in person. At the same time, Harris does not realize that Emil is helping him despite his many reservations. He does not realize that he does have a friend who is doing his best to pull that stick out of Harris’ ass, but the further in it goes, more problems arises.
However, social media has its uses. It has a purpose in the world of business, but in society, that’s another question. When Harris uses it as his lifeblood and measure of his worth, maybe what he needs is a reality check (with perhaps a sociologist/psychologist to treat him).
The underlying themes of what this film examines is great, but sadly the execution is hit and miss. Unless viewers can actually care for the protagonist, the reason to continue watching will depend on either wanting to see how Harris’ life will pan out or wondering who the comely women in red (Sarah Smick) is involved in this plot. As Sylvie, this woman has a beef to settle with Harris, and to watch how that pans out is almost as nutty as watching an episode of MadTV. This subplot actually carries this movie a lot more, and it has all the meat to make watching this movie all the more interesting.
Ryan Hansen (Zach McGowan, Veronica Mars) is a terrific actor, and he plays the perfect narcissistic jerk. As Michael Harris, he’s unsympathetic to everyone he knows, including his new mate Emil (Zach McGowan, Shameless) whom he treats poorly.
Harris is more obsessive with telling his Facebook friends what is going on in his day-to-day life. But when he gets fired from his job as a traffic cop, just what does he do next? He definitely does not go crying to his mom about it. Instead, he hatches a plot to fake his death (with the help of Emil) and look online to see who will miss him.
No one. This movie is not about saying how terrible and unsympathetic people are. Instead, it reveals that one can not treat social media as the end all be all of how relationships are defined. The screenplay is well thought out to show a hyperbole of extremes. Harris is more obsessed with what is said online than in person. At the same time, Harris does not realize that Emil is helping him despite his many reservations. He does not realize that he does have a friend who is doing his best to pull that stick out of Harris’ ass, but the further in it goes, more problems arises.
However, social media has its uses. It has a purpose in the world of business, but in society, that’s another question. When Harris uses it as his lifeblood and measure of his worth, maybe what he needs is a reality check (with perhaps a sociologist/psychologist to treat him).
The underlying themes of what this film examines is great, but sadly the execution is hit and miss. Unless viewers can actually care for the protagonist, the reason to continue watching will depend on either wanting to see how Harris’ life will pan out or wondering who the comely women in red (Sarah Smick) is involved in this plot. As Sylvie, this woman has a beef to settle with Harris, and to watch how that pans out is almost as nutty as watching an episode of MadTV. This subplot actually carries this movie a lot more, and it has all the meat to make watching this movie all the more interesting.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Fairly Tale In Hollywood But Lacks Finesse And Excitement
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a 2019 dramedy (drama/comedy) movie written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and producers David Heyman and Shannon Mcintosh. It was produced by Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, and Visiona Romantica and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch and Al Pacino.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Really Great Video Game Movie
Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is a 2019 video game film adaptation directed by Rob Letterman with screenplay written by Letterman, Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit and Derek Connolly from a story by Hernandez, Samit, and Nicole Perlman. The movie is produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures and The Pokemon Company, in association with Toho Co., Ltd. It's based on the Pokemon franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri and the 2016 video game Detective Pikachu. The movie stars Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Ken Watanabe, and Bill Nighy.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
Kane Hodder recommended Monster (2003) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2021
Pseudo-Documentary
Frances McDormand is an interesting character actress to watch, one that uses her character actress looks to disguise the fact that she is, in fact, a strong leading actress that draws our attention to her in whatever project she is in. This facet of her on-screen personae is going full throttle in her new film NOMADLAND.
And, thank goodness it is, for without McDormand on the screen, this “slice-of-life” pseudo-documentary disguised as a feature film would be almost unwatchable as McDormand’s character floats through “slice of life” after “slice of life” in what is referred to as the “Nomad Lifestyle”.
Earnestly Directed by Chloe Zao, NOMADLAND tells the tale of Fern (McDormand) who loses her life, her job and her husband during the recession of the late 2000’s and starts to float through life - and experiences - as a “Nomad”, a person with no permanent address who goes from place to place, catching on to the random odd job and living her life in her van.
Zao and McDormand spent years filming in actual Nomad communities with the others in this film often times not realizing that McDormand was an actress playing a part. For McDormand, it had to be the ultimate acting challenge - living in the real world as a character - and she brings a watchable, lost Fern to the screen and she genuinely and earnestly interacts with the real-life characters she encounters. She is very watchable and is a pleasant character to spend the time with.
Most of these real life people she encounters open up about their lifestyle and the movie took on the feel of documentary with Fern as the interviewer/narrator of the story. This made for an intriguing glimpse into a heretofore unknown world (at least to me), but not a compelling film does it make.
Zao does try to drive a narrative as the only other notable actor in this film - David Straitharn - shows up as a fellow Nomad that develops a crush on Fern and is interested in leaving the Nomad life and invites Fern to join him.
This is the only real conflict in this story as we spend an hour-forty-five watching Fern flit from place to place and person to person not really trying to find herself, but letting the wind blow her to wherever the trail takes her next.
An intriguing (enough) slice of life, with a watchable central performance by McDormand, but not substantial enough to engage me as a feature film.
Letter Grade: B (I applaud the attempt)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And, thank goodness it is, for without McDormand on the screen, this “slice-of-life” pseudo-documentary disguised as a feature film would be almost unwatchable as McDormand’s character floats through “slice of life” after “slice of life” in what is referred to as the “Nomad Lifestyle”.
Earnestly Directed by Chloe Zao, NOMADLAND tells the tale of Fern (McDormand) who loses her life, her job and her husband during the recession of the late 2000’s and starts to float through life - and experiences - as a “Nomad”, a person with no permanent address who goes from place to place, catching on to the random odd job and living her life in her van.
Zao and McDormand spent years filming in actual Nomad communities with the others in this film often times not realizing that McDormand was an actress playing a part. For McDormand, it had to be the ultimate acting challenge - living in the real world as a character - and she brings a watchable, lost Fern to the screen and she genuinely and earnestly interacts with the real-life characters she encounters. She is very watchable and is a pleasant character to spend the time with.
Most of these real life people she encounters open up about their lifestyle and the movie took on the feel of documentary with Fern as the interviewer/narrator of the story. This made for an intriguing glimpse into a heretofore unknown world (at least to me), but not a compelling film does it make.
Zao does try to drive a narrative as the only other notable actor in this film - David Straitharn - shows up as a fellow Nomad that develops a crush on Fern and is interested in leaving the Nomad life and invites Fern to join him.
This is the only real conflict in this story as we spend an hour-forty-five watching Fern flit from place to place and person to person not really trying to find herself, but letting the wind blow her to wherever the trail takes her next.
An intriguing (enough) slice of life, with a watchable central performance by McDormand, but not substantial enough to engage me as a feature film.
Letter Grade: B (I applaud the attempt)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
Jeffrey Combs (2 more)
Bruce Abbott
Stuart Gordan
Mad Man
Re-Animator- is frankenstien. But alot more gorer. So much gory, so much viloence, so much horror. Its different than frankenstein, but has a lot in common.
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
