Search
Search results
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson (2017) in Movies
Nov 12, 2017 (Updated Nov 12, 2017)
Tremendous and hugely tragic
David France’s finely wrought documentary seeks justice for a pivotal figure in queer history from the beginning of Stonewall, whose death was said to have never been investigated properly.
Marsha P. Johnson was many things: outspoken LGBT activist, downtown superstar, model muse to Andy Warhol. In 1992, her body was found in the Hudson River, with police classifying her death as a suicide. The documentary is almost a resurrection of this transgender icon, but also a vivid portrayal of the immense suffering the community has faced over decades, even until this day.
The movie methodically explores who might have had cause to kill her - the local mafia, who were heavily involved in then-still-underground gay bar scene? A violent john or a passing group of straight men bent on hate crime? One of the most important characters in this film alongside Johnson was Sylvia Riviera, and her own tragic life just reflects the dire situation people are left to deal with.
Death is what leads the title and drives the movie. But it's her life - vibrant, pioneering, and much too short - that gives Marsha her flamboyant, beautiful heart. A truly moving portrayal.
Marsha P. Johnson was many things: outspoken LGBT activist, downtown superstar, model muse to Andy Warhol. In 1992, her body was found in the Hudson River, with police classifying her death as a suicide. The documentary is almost a resurrection of this transgender icon, but also a vivid portrayal of the immense suffering the community has faced over decades, even until this day.
The movie methodically explores who might have had cause to kill her - the local mafia, who were heavily involved in then-still-underground gay bar scene? A violent john or a passing group of straight men bent on hate crime? One of the most important characters in this film alongside Johnson was Sylvia Riviera, and her own tragic life just reflects the dire situation people are left to deal with.
Death is what leads the title and drives the movie. But it's her life - vibrant, pioneering, and much too short - that gives Marsha her flamboyant, beautiful heart. A truly moving portrayal.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Queen Kong (1976) in Movies
Feb 8, 2019
Low-budget cash-in spoof of de Laurentiis's King Kong remake; there's a lot of uneven comedy and some dreadful monster suits, so you can see why Dino felt impinged upon. Tough female film-maker (Lenska) despairs of finding a man with the guts to star in her new movie; she kidnaps petty thief Ray Fay (Asquith) and takes him off to a remote African country with a large gorilla population (only one gorilla, but it is very large). You can probably guess the rest.
You turn up to a film like Queen Kong with subterraneanly low expectations, but there are actually some not-bad jokes here, along with other bits which are so weird they are actually entertaining (title song includes the lyric 'When I'm feeling kinda spunky I want to do it with my funky monkey', which I didn't anticipate). There's also a rather peculiar feminist subtext and it's not entirely clear whether the movie is taking the mick out of Woman's Lib or if it's sincerely intended. A definite oddity; the production is primitive, but it has just enough ideas to be interesting.
You turn up to a film like Queen Kong with subterraneanly low expectations, but there are actually some not-bad jokes here, along with other bits which are so weird they are actually entertaining (title song includes the lyric 'When I'm feeling kinda spunky I want to do it with my funky monkey', which I didn't anticipate). There's also a rather peculiar feminist subtext and it's not entirely clear whether the movie is taking the mick out of Woman's Lib or if it's sincerely intended. A definite oddity; the production is primitive, but it has just enough ideas to be interesting.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Feb 11, 2020 (Updated Feb 11, 2020)
Alfred The Movie
Teen Titans Go! To The Movies- has some great references, surprising comedic cameo, nice nods to the tv show and its also very funny.
Plus it finally has Nicolas Cage as Superman, he is only voicing him though, but still finally get Nicolas Cage as Superman after all these years. I would of still loved to see the live action verison with Nicolas Cage and Tim Burton directing it.
Anyways the plot: It seems that all the major superheroes out there are starring in their own movies -- all but the Teen Titans. Robin is bound and determined to remedy that situation by becoming a star instead of a sidekick. With a few madcap ideas and a song in their hearts, the Teen Titans head to Hollywood to fulfill their dreams. Things soon go awry, however, when a supervillain plans to take over the planet -- putting the very fate of the young heroes on the line.
Its a really great/intresting plot. If you havent seen this movie, than go watch it. Cause its a must see.
Plus it finally has Nicolas Cage as Superman, he is only voicing him though, but still finally get Nicolas Cage as Superman after all these years. I would of still loved to see the live action verison with Nicolas Cage and Tim Burton directing it.
Anyways the plot: It seems that all the major superheroes out there are starring in their own movies -- all but the Teen Titans. Robin is bound and determined to remedy that situation by becoming a star instead of a sidekick. With a few madcap ideas and a song in their hearts, the Teen Titans head to Hollywood to fulfill their dreams. Things soon go awry, however, when a supervillain plans to take over the planet -- putting the very fate of the young heroes on the line.
Its a really great/intresting plot. If you havent seen this movie, than go watch it. Cause its a must see.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 7, 2020
Not my usual kind of movie, but I turn up for anything with Greta Gerwig or Florence Pugh involved in it. Happily this proved not to be the leaden piece of post-MeToo agitprop some of the advertising suggested, but a sensitive and subtle adaptation of a classic piece of literature (it says here). During and after the American Civil War, four sisters (Meg, Amy, Little Jo and Hoss) grow up and come of age, under the steely gaze of their Aunt Ben Cartwright (Meryl Streep). (I may be getting this mixed up with something else.)
Strong performances, especially from Ronan and Pugh, and a generally classy movie in most respects. This is mainly due to a very smart script and evocative direction, both from Gerwig, which finds clever resonances between events at different points in the narrative (the story is told somewhat out of chronological order) and creates just the right kind of atmosphere. There is inevitably a little bit of gender politics, but also a scene where a character suggests that there's nothing wrong with wanting to get married and have children, either. Engaging, likeable, and even quite moving in places.
Strong performances, especially from Ronan and Pugh, and a generally classy movie in most respects. This is mainly due to a very smart script and evocative direction, both from Gerwig, which finds clever resonances between events at different points in the narrative (the story is told somewhat out of chronological order) and creates just the right kind of atmosphere. There is inevitably a little bit of gender politics, but also a scene where a character suggests that there's nothing wrong with wanting to get married and have children, either. Engaging, likeable, and even quite moving in places.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Fury (1978) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 5, 2020)
In the last of this list we skip forward 16 years and some 25 film credits. Not that there wasn’t any work of quality in that period, but because the edge that existed in the younger man had undoubtedly waned, with Douglas often miscast or out of his depth. Aged 62 he stumbles upon a role in a psychological horror movie that is quintessentially 70s. The reason I believe this is the last movie of real note he made is that it was a committed performance that returned him to the idea of being an angry underdog. Essentially a thriller, Douglas revels in the fear and anguish of a father pushed to the edge of his abilities to save his son. Even though he would go on to make many more films, you feel the last of his real fire was given to this role. It also proves to me that despite a lifetime of activity the real grist of his career lasted only 16 years: 1946 – 1962. The rest was a man who knew cinema better than anyone, but couldn’t always outrun his own type-casting.
David McK (3857 KP) rated Ransom (1996) in Movies
Nov 7, 2021
Mid-90s thriller, starring Mel Gibson (back when he was still at the height of his career, before going completely loco IRL and getting himself into all sorts of trouble) as a wealthy airline owner whose son is kidnapped, and who must pay a ransom in order to get the kid back.
However, for 'reasons', and following a botched attempt to do so which the FBI crash, he decides instead to offer the ransom as a bounty on the kidnappers instead - kidnappers which the film has no qualms whatsoever about revealing from pretty much the get go.
That would have been a great twist (offering the ransom as a bounty, I mean) had the marketing for the movie not relied so heavily on it.
There's also surprisingly little made of it in the movie proper, save for one or two throwaway lines by interviewed citizens on the street.
As such, the film really relies on the 'star power' of Gibson himself and his co-star Rene Russo, alongside a strong turn by FBI agent Delroy Lindo and Gary Sinise.
The result is one of Gibson's more forgettable mid-90s thrillers, I feel.
However, for 'reasons', and following a botched attempt to do so which the FBI crash, he decides instead to offer the ransom as a bounty on the kidnappers instead - kidnappers which the film has no qualms whatsoever about revealing from pretty much the get go.
That would have been a great twist (offering the ransom as a bounty, I mean) had the marketing for the movie not relied so heavily on it.
There's also surprisingly little made of it in the movie proper, save for one or two throwaway lines by interviewed citizens on the street.
As such, the film really relies on the 'star power' of Gibson himself and his co-star Rene Russo, alongside a strong turn by FBI agent Delroy Lindo and Gary Sinise.
The result is one of Gibson's more forgettable mid-90s thrillers, I feel.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
Not Much More Than The Same Goofy Undead Routine
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie was pretty entertaining when I saw it in theaters but I was more than a little disappointed in the movie as a whole, especially when it was 10 years in the making, and because of how much I loved the original movie. As I mentioned above this movie started off strong with the introduction about how the zombies were changing or evolving. The 3 types were: Homers, which were so dumb they were almost not a threat, Hawkings, which were smarter than the average zombie, and Ninjas, which are the silent and stealthy types. The whole montage of them whooping zombie ass on the lawn of the White House was awesome too. The movie was going smooth to be but I didn't like how the plot felt recycled because of the girls leaving them and stealing their car just like the first one. I can see a lot of people being annoyed with the dumb blonde character Madison, but to me her scenes were generally pretty funny and I couldn't help but bust out laughing with that seat belt scene. The one character that I never really liked in the movie was Avan Jogia's character Berkeley. He was just a plot device that got the story moving and never really did anything except be a pacifist hippie who played the guitar and the love interest for Little Rock. She totally winds up stealing the car from Wichita and leaving her stranded. A lot of the movie I think probably sounded better on paper then it wound up coming out in the film. Like for example the new type of zombie called the T-800's (after the terminator) were tougher to kill, they showed how it dodge bullets like Neo from Matrix and even took a lot of bullets and kept on going until it had it's head smashed in. But the movie lost at lot of those good things along the way. The Homers come out again in a few scenes, they mention a Hawking but it didn't really do anything special, and they never showed a ninja. Also the T-800's who were so un-killable earlier are shown to be easily killable later. When the gang is at the hippie strong hold Babylon, which in itself is ridiculous, they do a plan to take out the horde of T-800's coming their way. There is a part where they are being swarmed by them and they have no weapons other than melee ones and are easily killing all the T-800s around them. Yeah the whole hippie stronghold place was a big stretch for me too. I mean it had walls to protected them and rules for new people like no guns (which they confiscate and melt), but there's no way they could be there for 10 years with no weapons surviving in the zombie apocalypse. Just like the character Madison surviving in the mall living in a freezer in Pinkberry for 10 years. It's just a lot of the logic went out the window. But still it was an above average zombie movie and that's why I give it a 6/10.
Lee (2222 KP) rated She Dies Tomorrow (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Pretentious waste of time
On paper, the concept behind She Dies Tomorrow is an intriguing one – “Amy thinks she’s dying tomorrow…and it’s contagious..”. And the trailer provided just enough mystery to make me want to seek it out too. Is it a portrayal of paranoia and anxiety, or is there something more sinister or supernatural at work, that they carefully and cleverly avoided showing us in the trailer?
We join Amy, already convinced that she is going to die tomorrow. She wanders aimlessly around her flat at night, drinking wine. Lying on the wooden floor, she traces her finger along the wood veins in the floorboards and presses herself against the wall, as if she is at one with the world and her surroundings. She also repeatedly drops the needle on a score by Mozart – a piece of music that I do not initially dislike, but come to loathe by the end of the movie.
Her close friend Jane pays a visit, but is dismissive of Amy and her insistence that tomorrow she will die. However, after Jane returns home to continue working, a sudden realisation crosses her face, and she also then has the feeling that she will die tomorrow. When Jane later joins a small party at her brother’s house, a similar pattern occurs, with everyone thinking she’s gone crazy. But eventually, they all start to think the same, with each realisation accompanied by a strange neon purple light flashing across their faces. It certainly does seem to be contagious…
The remainder of the movie deals with each character coming to terms with their impending death and passing the feeling onto a few other people. We see Amy trying to make the most of her remaining time, and we also flip back a few days to learn a bit more about her in the run up to today.
As I mentioned earlier – on paper, there’s definitely a great idea at the heart of She Dies Tomorrow, and reading back through my review certainly confirms that. Unfortunately though, nothing about this movie worked for me at all. I found the acting terrible, and was unable to connect with any of the characters. It’s less than 90 minutes long, but is such a dull, pretentious and badly written slow-burn that all mystery and intrigue generated by that trailer quickly vanishes. For a movie that wants you to ponder on your remaining time on this earth, it certainly does a pretty good job of wasting it. Oh and if you’re expecting some kind of explanation and ending that might help redeem the painful build-up, you’re going to be seriously disappointed.
We join Amy, already convinced that she is going to die tomorrow. She wanders aimlessly around her flat at night, drinking wine. Lying on the wooden floor, she traces her finger along the wood veins in the floorboards and presses herself against the wall, as if she is at one with the world and her surroundings. She also repeatedly drops the needle on a score by Mozart – a piece of music that I do not initially dislike, but come to loathe by the end of the movie.
Her close friend Jane pays a visit, but is dismissive of Amy and her insistence that tomorrow she will die. However, after Jane returns home to continue working, a sudden realisation crosses her face, and she also then has the feeling that she will die tomorrow. When Jane later joins a small party at her brother’s house, a similar pattern occurs, with everyone thinking she’s gone crazy. But eventually, they all start to think the same, with each realisation accompanied by a strange neon purple light flashing across their faces. It certainly does seem to be contagious…
The remainder of the movie deals with each character coming to terms with their impending death and passing the feeling onto a few other people. We see Amy trying to make the most of her remaining time, and we also flip back a few days to learn a bit more about her in the run up to today.
As I mentioned earlier – on paper, there’s definitely a great idea at the heart of She Dies Tomorrow, and reading back through my review certainly confirms that. Unfortunately though, nothing about this movie worked for me at all. I found the acting terrible, and was unable to connect with any of the characters. It’s less than 90 minutes long, but is such a dull, pretentious and badly written slow-burn that all mystery and intrigue generated by that trailer quickly vanishes. For a movie that wants you to ponder on your remaining time on this earth, it certainly does a pretty good job of wasting it. Oh and if you’re expecting some kind of explanation and ending that might help redeem the painful build-up, you’re going to be seriously disappointed.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jan 9, 2019 (Updated Jan 9, 2019)
Emily Blunt & Lin-Manuel Miranda (1 more)
An Incredible Animated Sequence
Practically Perfect In Every Way?
I've never been a big Mary Poppins fan, but I went to see this because my girlfriend is and we both enjoyed it. I didn't go in expecting much, but this was a charming, harmless, family friendly time and I had fun with it. I think the fact that I am not a huge fan of the original was actually a benefit going in, because I wasn't constantly comparing the film to the OG.
First off, Emily Blunt did a sublime job in the title role. I am a huge fan of hers and she nails this role. To be honest from what I can remember from seeing the original when I was young, I think I prefer her to Julie Andrew's take on the character. Regardless, I don't think that there is any other actress working today that could have done a better job than she did.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is also fantastic as the Dick Van Dyke type character and does a good job of keeping the energy up and the plot moving forward throughout the movie. The lamp lighting sequence that he lead was one of the best in the film. The rest of the cast also do a decent job, except from the vastly overrated Meryl Streep, she was excruciatingly annoying and she felt unnecessarily shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason.
The highlight for me though, was the beautiful and dynamic animated sequence that happens within the porcelain bowl. This whole sequence was incredible and really blew me away. I found it particularly mind blowing as an animator myself. There were many times that I was left asking myself how they managed to pull off certain things and it left me extremely impressed.
Overall, this is a fun, family friendly romp that in my opinion surpasses the original. It is in some aspects a soft reboot, but there enough call-backs and homages to the OG version that it works as a sequel and will please long time fans of the first movie, but it will also hopefully entertain a whole new generation and Emily Blunt fills the big shoes left by her predecessor remarkably well.
First off, Emily Blunt did a sublime job in the title role. I am a huge fan of hers and she nails this role. To be honest from what I can remember from seeing the original when I was young, I think I prefer her to Julie Andrew's take on the character. Regardless, I don't think that there is any other actress working today that could have done a better job than she did.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is also fantastic as the Dick Van Dyke type character and does a good job of keeping the energy up and the plot moving forward throughout the movie. The lamp lighting sequence that he lead was one of the best in the film. The rest of the cast also do a decent job, except from the vastly overrated Meryl Streep, she was excruciatingly annoying and she felt unnecessarily shoehorned into the movie for no apparent reason.
The highlight for me though, was the beautiful and dynamic animated sequence that happens within the porcelain bowl. This whole sequence was incredible and really blew me away. I found it particularly mind blowing as an animator myself. There were many times that I was left asking myself how they managed to pull off certain things and it left me extremely impressed.
Overall, this is a fun, family friendly romp that in my opinion surpasses the original. It is in some aspects a soft reboot, but there enough call-backs and homages to the OG version that it works as a sequel and will please long time fans of the first movie, but it will also hopefully entertain a whole new generation and Emily Blunt fills the big shoes left by her predecessor remarkably well.