Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 17, 2019 (Updated Apr 17, 2019)
The script (4 more)
The CGI
The editing
The performances
Everything else
Actual Hell
If the Hellboy 2019 movie has one thing going for it, it's that it's impressive. It is impressive in the sense that it actually made me question the futility of time and why I was wasting my short time on this earth watching this atrocious piece of trash. There were several times when I was watching the film that I actually couldn't bring myself to believe how bad what I was witnessing onscreen really was. This might be the worst film I have ever seen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Festival (2018) in Movies
Aug 29, 2018
Fairly enjoyable comedy
The Festival is directed by Iain Morris, who co-created and wrote The Inbetweeners show and subsequent movies. It feels just like another Inbetweeners movie too, especially as star Joe Thomas plays what appears to be an exact copy of his Inbetweeners character Simon, pining for his girlfriend and obsessing over her throughout the movie. The result is a fairly likeable and enjoyable comedy, still a lot better than most movie comedies these days, and with some laugh out loud moments. But, you can't help comparing it to The Inbetweeners and, unfortunately, it's just nowhere near as good as that.
In The Festival, Joe Thomas plays Nick, preparing to graduate and soon to head off to a festival with best friend Shane and girlfriend Caitlin. After a cringe-worthy ejaculation gag involving his mother, getting dumped by Caitlin and having a breakdown on stage at his graduation ceremony, Nick becomes depressed and it's up to Shane to try and drag him along to the festival and moveon with life. On the train to the festival they meet up with Amy, who's also on her way to the festival, and when they do finally get there they end up camping right next to ex-girlfriend Caitlin and her friends.
Your level of enjoyment throughout The Festival is going to vary depending on how you feel about festivals as a whole. If you're like Nick for much of the movie, then you're going to share his discomfort with the mud, the toilets and the cramped camping arrangements, laughing at him and his frustrations with it all ("I just want to go home and have a nice shower and a poo!"). If you're a festival goer yourself then you'll revel in the whole experience lived out on screen, as the movie was actually filmed during a real festival. Along the way there's drink, drugs, druids(!) and nudity for Nick to endure as he hopes to get back with Caitlin, and then later on a blue smurf girl who he hooks up with for a one night stand.
The supporting cast are all fairly funny, particularly Hammed Animashaun and Claudia O'Doherty as friends Shane and Amy. But, it's the brilliant Jemaine Clement as Shanes stepdad who manages to steal every single scene he's in and is just hilarious. Sadly though he's not in it as much as he should be.
In The Festival, Joe Thomas plays Nick, preparing to graduate and soon to head off to a festival with best friend Shane and girlfriend Caitlin. After a cringe-worthy ejaculation gag involving his mother, getting dumped by Caitlin and having a breakdown on stage at his graduation ceremony, Nick becomes depressed and it's up to Shane to try and drag him along to the festival and moveon with life. On the train to the festival they meet up with Amy, who's also on her way to the festival, and when they do finally get there they end up camping right next to ex-girlfriend Caitlin and her friends.
Your level of enjoyment throughout The Festival is going to vary depending on how you feel about festivals as a whole. If you're like Nick for much of the movie, then you're going to share his discomfort with the mud, the toilets and the cramped camping arrangements, laughing at him and his frustrations with it all ("I just want to go home and have a nice shower and a poo!"). If you're a festival goer yourself then you'll revel in the whole experience lived out on screen, as the movie was actually filmed during a real festival. Along the way there's drink, drugs, druids(!) and nudity for Nick to endure as he hopes to get back with Caitlin, and then later on a blue smurf girl who he hooks up with for a one night stand.
The supporting cast are all fairly funny, particularly Hammed Animashaun and Claudia O'Doherty as friends Shane and Amy. But, it's the brilliant Jemaine Clement as Shanes stepdad who manages to steal every single scene he's in and is just hilarious. Sadly though he's not in it as much as he should be.
Fred (860 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2019
Long Live the King!
Funny how people complained about the 2014 Godzilla movie saying there wasn't enough Godzilla in it. Anyone who is a fan know most Godzilla movies don't have a lot of Godzilla in it. Anyway, now they're complaining about too many monsters. Ridiculous. Let me tell you, this film is for Godzilla fans & boy does it deliver. The story is good enough. I won't give too much away, but the monsters (Titans as they are called here) are woken up & only Godzilla can stop them.
The movie is still pretty heavy on the human story, but it's just the right amount. It ends with a grand Godzilla fight. I'm sure you all know which monsters are involved in the film. By using CGI, they not only look spectacular, but you can get many angles & views of them that you couldn't get by guys in rubber suits. There are so many cool scenes, my favorite maybe being Rodan against the jets. Mothra also appears in the film. Sorry, no tiny singing ladies. But, the song is in the movie! In fact, all of the songs are in the movie! It was great hearing the monster's themes play when they appeared on the screen. Nothing gets you going more than hearing the Godzilla theme playing while he stomps towards the enemy.
The human actors do the job moving things along. There's some corny dialogue (You're a monster!") but we're not talking Shakespeare here anyway. If you're looking for something fun to see, go right out & see this now!
The movie is still pretty heavy on the human story, but it's just the right amount. It ends with a grand Godzilla fight. I'm sure you all know which monsters are involved in the film. By using CGI, they not only look spectacular, but you can get many angles & views of them that you couldn't get by guys in rubber suits. There are so many cool scenes, my favorite maybe being Rodan against the jets. Mothra also appears in the film. Sorry, no tiny singing ladies. But, the song is in the movie! In fact, all of the songs are in the movie! It was great hearing the monster's themes play when they appeared on the screen. Nothing gets you going more than hearing the Godzilla theme playing while he stomps towards the enemy.
The human actors do the job moving things along. There's some corny dialogue (You're a monster!") but we're not talking Shakespeare here anyway. If you're looking for something fun to see, go right out & see this now!
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Interview with the Vampire (1994) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
How can a movie that does practically everything wrong still be so thoroughly enchanting? A fundamentally baffling, scalding hot trainwreck of epic proportions that hasn't held up to the passage of time really at all - a miscalculated weirdo relic of pop culture history. I think a lot of this film's appeal has to do with the fact that it's complete lightning in a bottle - for better or for worse we will never see another movie like this again: mopey, homoerotic rococo vampires stumble around through a flounderingly-paced pre-𝘛𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 template for lectures on moral dilemmas and a gallery of some of the most lush period visuals of the 90s (from the sweltering plantations of the 1700s south to the decadence of gothic European high-life, it's all orgasmically displayed). Also this is maybe the best use of "Sympathy For The Devil" in a film, even if it is an inferior cover. The fact that Brad Pitt wanted to die the entire time while filming for this woefully underconstructed character actually makes it the only thing that works with it, considering his only defining feature is... that he wants to die. A totally birdbrained brothel of jagged writing and wicked scenery-chewing from a glorious cast (you know you're in for a treat when Christian Slater gives the most restrained performance lol), actually pretty great even though it disembowels a lot of the original text's depth. Full-tilt camp.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Curse of La Llorona (2019) in Movies
Apr 21, 2019
I've said it before, The Conjuring is my all time favourite scary movie. However, since the success of that first movie, there have been a number of spin off movies, in an bid to build what's now known as the 'Conjuring Universe'. These movies have all varied in quality, ranging from the not too bad (Annabelle Creation) to the downright awful (The Nun). With a third Annabelle movie due out this year, not to mention another Conjuring sequel and other planned universe movies such as The Crooked Man, there's no sign of them stopping anytime soon.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Which brings us to The Curse of La Llorona, the latest entry to the universe and one which is based on Mexican folklore. La Llorona, also known as "The Weeping Woman", is the ghost of a woman who drowned her children and now cries while looking for them in the river. Nowadays, children are told to be well behaved and respectful of their elders, otherwise La Llorona will come and take them away.
This movie wasn't originally billed as being part of the Conjuring universe, and featured a pretty dull first trailer. However, a subsequent trailer featured a familiar face from the Annabelle movies in the form of Father Perez (Tony Amendola), and a link to the Conjuring universe was later confirmed, despite his presence in this movie being somewhat brief.
We're in Los Angeles, 1976. Anna (Linda Cardellini) is a widow with two young kids and working in social services. She still mourns the death of her police officer husband while trying to keep her family together and maintain her demanding job. That job involves dealing with some difficult cases involving children and one such case takes her to the Alvarez home. The mother appears to have lost her mind, while her children are locked in a cupboard that has strange markings on the door. As the title of the movie suggests, there is a curse at play and it's not long before that curse, and the horror that brings with it, is passed onto Anna and her children.
Like The Nun, La Llorona is essentially just a woman with scary face makeup who shrieks at people every so often and tries to make you jump. But thankfully, there's a little more to La Llorona than just that. Some slow, effective reveals provide some pretty decent chills and scares, making this a much more solid and enjoyable movie as she begins to terrorise the children before eventually invading their home and going full on evil.
After Father Perez brings us all up to speed on the backstory of La Llorona, and a flashback to 1763 gives us a visual and graphic representation, the family are referred to an ex priest who is better suited in helping them shake off the curse. He comes to their home in order to prepare for the arrival, and hopefully the removal of, La Llorona. It all feels very formulaic, similar to countless movies we've seen before, such as Poltergeist.
The Curse of La Llorona is pretty corny at times, attempting to inject humour which doesn't always seem to work. However, I did like it. It's certainly a huge step up from last year's disappointing Nun movie and featured enough intensity and scares in its short 93 minute runtime to make it enjoyable enough.
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018
CGI (2 more)
Acting choice
Interesting twist to a retelling
Plot? Dragon being real or save the environment? (2 more)
Who's the bad guy?
Where was Pete the whole dang time?
Letterboxd review: https://letterboxd.com/caitcher/film/petes-dragon-2016/
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Close (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Strong Performance From Female Lead
Close is a 2019 action/thriller movie directed by Vicky Jewson and written by Jewson and Rupert Whitaker. The movie was produced by Piccadilly Pictures, West end Films, Whitaker Media, and Jewson Film and distributed by Netflix. The film stars Noomi Rapace, Sophie Nelisse, and Indira Varma.
Close protection officer, Sam Carlson (Noomi Rapace) saves two journalists while on a routine mission in South Sudan, when their vehicle is attacked by insurgents. Troubled child, Zoe Tanner (Sophie Nelisse) discovers she's inherited all of her father's shares in his company, Hassine Mining. Her stepmother, Rima Hassine (Indira Varma) is left shocked and angered as she has taken over as CEO and it was her family which founded the company. Rima demands that Zoe accompany her to the family home in Morroco while she completes a billion dollar deal for phosphate mining in Zambia. Sam is hired by Rima for the trip as her last bodyguard was fired. Sam's job is done but Zoe demands she stay the night. Then all hell breaks loose when that night a group of armed men attack and storm the complex.
This movie was really good. It had me from the beginning but then took forever to start up again. I was excited to see Noomi Rapace as the lead in this action film and she does not disappoint. Her performance was intense and she gives her all in this film. However the direction the movie goes plot wise seemed less interesting the longer it went on. It seemed to fall more into the "cliche", run of the mill, international action thrillers or straight to redbox/on-demand films. I still liked it a lot and there were also pretty strong performances by the other leading ladies. The daughter's performance to me was more "so-so" though. Still I give this movie a 7/10.
Close protection officer, Sam Carlson (Noomi Rapace) saves two journalists while on a routine mission in South Sudan, when their vehicle is attacked by insurgents. Troubled child, Zoe Tanner (Sophie Nelisse) discovers she's inherited all of her father's shares in his company, Hassine Mining. Her stepmother, Rima Hassine (Indira Varma) is left shocked and angered as she has taken over as CEO and it was her family which founded the company. Rima demands that Zoe accompany her to the family home in Morroco while she completes a billion dollar deal for phosphate mining in Zambia. Sam is hired by Rima for the trip as her last bodyguard was fired. Sam's job is done but Zoe demands she stay the night. Then all hell breaks loose when that night a group of armed men attack and storm the complex.
This movie was really good. It had me from the beginning but then took forever to start up again. I was excited to see Noomi Rapace as the lead in this action film and she does not disappoint. Her performance was intense and she gives her all in this film. However the direction the movie goes plot wise seemed less interesting the longer it went on. It seemed to fall more into the "cliche", run of the mill, international action thrillers or straight to redbox/on-demand films. I still liked it a lot and there were also pretty strong performances by the other leading ladies. The daughter's performance to me was more "so-so" though. Still I give this movie a 7/10.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
The Rise & Fall of a White Collar Hooligan (2012)
4.5
Rate It
Movie
An unemployed football fanatic named Mike Jacobs (played by Nick Nevern) becomes a major credit card...