Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Splice (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
I consider myself a pretty well educated horror-movie buff. As a child, my brother lovingly showed me movies like Critters” and Ghoulies, along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th series. Freddy Krueger scared me no more than Ronald McDonald did (and no, I don’t have a fear of clowns). I have pretty much grown immune to horror films and their ilk, so it takes a lot to get a rise out of me. Sadly, like many many others, Splice failed miserably in doing so.
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 23, 2020)
A Sheep In Wolf's Clothing
Call Of The Wild is such a lovely heartfelt movie that will leave everyone that goes to see it with that warm tingly feeling inside their chest and a nice big smile on thier face. Ive seen this film is getting a lot of hate because of its over reliance on cgi animals and while I will admit I found it very distracting to start with after 10 minutes I became accustom and think the movie is much better for using it. Why you ask? well the movie to me is obviously aimed at children and the over all feel of it to me was very much like a classic Disney animated cartoon. Let me explain, theres just something so lovely, peaceful and magical about the whole thing and the way its structured, how exaggerated the characters are, the world it builds and the story. See they all just all come together to give you those same feelings you had when you watched a fairytale like beauty and the beast for the first time. Having the dog be cgi lets him have more cartoonish/exaggerated animations and a way more expressive face really helps us to relate to him better, clearly see how hes feeling and to add to this constant sense of warmth/magic thats present throughout. Theres also a fantastic sense of adventure here and the film uses stunning locations to constantly wow us and keep us in this picturesque perfect dream or tranquil fantasy kind of state. Harrison ford is splendid here playing a lonely man whos almost given up hope of being truly happy until Buck comes along. His perfomance is so touching and you can clearly hear in his Blade Runner style narrations the sadness and pain in his heart which immediately helps you to feel sympathy towards him. Bucks story is equally as sad too, he longs to be part of a pack/family of his own and to one day become a leader answering to no one but himself. His motivations are shown in the form of a powerful and strong black wolf that keeps his confidence up and his determination strong and theres so many messages about never giving up, pushing forward and trusting in your destiny too that its hard not to become fully engrossed in his journey. It may be a simple tale but its an absolute joy to watch and its motivational themes are guaranteed to make anyone think positively about thier own life while watching. I also can not go without mentioning Dan Stevens, boy is this guy talented. His acting here is devilishly cartoonish, over the top wicked and had me grinning constantly in pure delight. Call Of The Wild is an all out beautiful, fun, adorable and exciting adventure for all the family to enjoy and I can not wait till it comes out to buy on 4k.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 3, 2019 (Updated Nov 4, 2019)
Love or Death
Doctor Sleep is a perfect companion piece to The Shining giving us more insite to the story it told while being carful not to stand on its toes. A chilling film that creates such a great atmosphere by using a great score and tight direction to keep you on edge and unnerved with shivers down your spine. This accompanied with a grim, cold, errie visual style and lingering slow camera pans you have a film that echos the original in some respects but feels very current too. Cinematography is also gorgeous with vast haunting establishing shots, dim lit rooms, cold fog drenched roads and lonely lights lost in the darkness. But what i found truly facinating is the continuous theme of life and death here which had me gripped/wanting to explore the film deeper and more intricatly with every scene. Every single life is precious and the film depicts how many of us seem to just take that for granted, waste it, live it alone, abuse it or spend it hung up on the past or on extream circumstances choose to take it from another without care or thought to what value that persons precence in the world held. Its all very powerful, deeply saddening and thought provoking stuff which gives the film its own soul rather than echoing the shining. Theres a lot to say about how we view death too these days, be it when its from natural causes or murder we all just seem to have in a way become desensitized to it or in a rush to forget and move on. Child trauma, grievence and the torment plus the dangers of locking things up and trying to forget can bring are also facinatingly explored also.
Characters are all so likable and we spend a good chunk of time with all (including the menacing and creepily intimidating villains) which I thought was really nice and this helps create great attachment meaning that when a death hits you really feel the impact of the loss adding poweful emotion and a small amount of grievence to each one (and adds to the running theme of all life being important and death being something everyone fears/cant escape). Acting is great especially with the new cast replicating old characters from the shining. Doctor sleep also gets nostalgia right using parts of the shining respectfuly and tastfully rather than just simply replicating them for a cheap cash grab, instead choosing to intrigate them as crucial parts of the plot. All in all this movie unnerved me, engrosed and provoked me making me think more on the subject of death the journey we all take towards and how we should all pay more care and give more thought to the ones we let go.
Characters are all so likable and we spend a good chunk of time with all (including the menacing and creepily intimidating villains) which I thought was really nice and this helps create great attachment meaning that when a death hits you really feel the impact of the loss adding poweful emotion and a small amount of grievence to each one (and adds to the running theme of all life being important and death being something everyone fears/cant escape). Acting is great especially with the new cast replicating old characters from the shining. Doctor sleep also gets nostalgia right using parts of the shining respectfuly and tastfully rather than just simply replicating them for a cheap cash grab, instead choosing to intrigate them as crucial parts of the plot. All in all this movie unnerved me, engrosed and provoked me making me think more on the subject of death the journey we all take towards and how we should all pay more care and give more thought to the ones we let go.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Sing (2016) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
I admit, I went into this with low expectations. It looked like a karaoke kids movie from an animation studio that I do not rate that highly. But what do I know?
Illumination studios have managed to rack up a “Stinker” on this blog with The Lorax (3D) (2012), which was filled with songs which did not seem to go with the movie and maybe that was in my mind when I first saw the trailer for this, but I must admit, that I was wrong.
The story focuses around a Koala Bear (Matthew McConauhey) who owns his dream theatre in New York, but it is about to fail big. He ends up setting up singing contest in order to try and save it and a verity of animals from this this Zootopia styled world inhabited solely by animals, are entered into the competition.
The writing was good, strong and simple. The characters had enough depth, the song choices were good and the antics surrounding Matthew McConauhey’s efforts to keep his theatre open against the odds were genuinely funny.
It was also nice to see that several character tropes were not pandered too, such as the house wife pig (Reese Witherspoon) goes to elaborate lengths to take part, by automating her house to get her litter of piglets to school and her middle management husband to work, all of whom take her for granted so much that they fail to even notice that she is not there.
But instead of attacking her housewife status and saying that she was being hampered by this “boring” life and should be a singer and follow her dreams as many films would suggest, this simply asks for a balance. That impressed me… a lot.
Well worth a watch and defiantly one for the whole family.
Illumination studios have managed to rack up a “Stinker” on this blog with The Lorax (3D) (2012), which was filled with songs which did not seem to go with the movie and maybe that was in my mind when I first saw the trailer for this, but I must admit, that I was wrong.
The story focuses around a Koala Bear (Matthew McConauhey) who owns his dream theatre in New York, but it is about to fail big. He ends up setting up singing contest in order to try and save it and a verity of animals from this this Zootopia styled world inhabited solely by animals, are entered into the competition.
The writing was good, strong and simple. The characters had enough depth, the song choices were good and the antics surrounding Matthew McConauhey’s efforts to keep his theatre open against the odds were genuinely funny.
It was also nice to see that several character tropes were not pandered too, such as the house wife pig (Reese Witherspoon) goes to elaborate lengths to take part, by automating her house to get her litter of piglets to school and her middle management husband to work, all of whom take her for granted so much that they fail to even notice that she is not there.
But instead of attacking her housewife status and saying that she was being hampered by this “boring” life and should be a singer and follow her dreams as many films would suggest, this simply asks for a balance. That impressed me… a lot.
Well worth a watch and defiantly one for the whole family.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bride of Chucky (1998) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
One of those 'guilty pleasures' you here so much about
Bride of Chucky is a prime example of what Horror films were like in the aftermath of Scream.
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV 😂
Ditching the straight up horror path of the first couple of movies for a silly, self aware, and often humorous movie.
Quite simply, Bride of Chucky is trashy nonsense. It knows it too, and just about walks into 'so bad , it's good' territory.
Chucky has been promoted from villain to main character, and for the most part, it's pretty enjoyable. Brad Dourif works wonders with a cheesy script, dragging Chucky into a post Scream horror landscape, and creating more of an antihero that gained propularity pretty quickly.
Props to Jennifer Tilly as well for going along with the silliness with enthusiasm.
The main issue with Bride of Chucky is the protagonists were supposed to be rooting for. Nick Stabile and a young Katherine Heigl play a young couple taken hostage by Chucky, and I think they are definitely in the running for the most brain dead characters I've ever seen in a horror.
Most importantly, there is not a single atom within my being that gives the slightest shit about them, or their completely uninteresting eloping side story.
It very nearly stops the movie dead in it's tracks, but thankfully, any scenes that involve Chucky and Tiffany (which is often) is entertaining enough to make the film watchable.
The story is nonsense though, make no mistake.
The animatronic work on Chucky and Tiffany is genuinely impressive, and an obvious step up from the first trilogy. Chucky's design is also genuinely horrific.
Overall, Bride of Chucky is an un-scary, silly and cheesy experience, but it has some fun moments and is one of those horror films that I will probably watch until the end every time I see it on TV 😂
John Krasinski recommended The Verdict (1982) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
The original Halloween is such a goddam incredible movie, that anytime the franchise has tried to stray too far from its roots, the wheels just come off. The psychic stuff in Halloween 5 just didn't work. The cult stuff in Halloween 6 just didn't work. The found footage stuff in Resurrection just didn't work. This time around, it's a remake of the original, directed by Rob Zombie. His particular brand of hateful characters and nasty dialogue can be effective in other corners of horror, but when applied to the Halloween template, you guessed it, it just doesn't work.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Jul 4, 2019
Propelled by its near perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes, I went cold turkey into The Big Sick, without so much as seeing a trailer. Although it took a worrisome amount of time, I did eventually warm up to the film and ultimately I ended up enjoying it quite a bit. The Big Sick is a movie that’s unflatteringly honest at times, and it’s a bit light in both of the romance and comedy departments, but it’s a well-rounded true story that makes up for its any of its shortcomings with a big heart.
The Big Sick tells the unique, real-life love story of how Kumail Nanjiani, played by himself in the film, met the love of his life, Emily. The film begins with Kumail working as a struggling stand-up comic. After a performance one night, he meets Emily at a bar and takes her back to his place. The two of them gradually begin dating, but Kumail keeps it a secret from his strict Pakistani parents, who expect him to abide by his culture’s custom of arranged marriages. When Emily’s health unexpectedly takes a dangerous and mysterious turn, Kumail must confront his family, as well as meet Emily’s family, to confess his true feelings of love.
Allow me to begin by addressing the fact that I spent a good half of The Big Sick feeling entirely ambivalent about it. While it seemed well made, I didn’t feel particularly entertained nor engaged by it. Slowly but surely, however, the movie began to win me over, thanks primarily to the help of Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, who co-star as Emily’s parents. By the end, I appreciated and enjoyed the film, and I feel as though I would probably like it even more with a second viewing.
The movie rubbed me the wrong way early on with its not-so-romantic romance that culminated from a one-night-stand. I found the relationship of Kumail and Emily to be somewhat dull, and I was perplexed by how unfavorably it depicts both characters. Though considering the screenplay was actually written by both of them, I suppose there’s something noble and courageous to be said about their honesty. This is not a typical romanticized love story. It has two decent but flawed characters, who I felt indifferent towards at the outset but learned to care about over the course of the film.
Kumail is quite enjoyable as the lead star and I suspect this will be a breakout role for him. He has a good sense of humor and really showcases it in a couple of hysterical scenes. My favorite being a late night visit to a restaurant drive-thru, which is one of the flat-out funniest moments I’ve seen in theaters all year. I also really loved both Romano and Hunter. They’re both complex and comical characters struggling with their own strained marriage, while hesitantly getting to know Kumail and coming to terms with their daughter’s grave illness. Certainly not the best circumstances to be meeting your girlfriend’s parents, and even worse considering they knew that Kumail and Emily had broken up shortly beforehand.
Hunter’s character is volatile and highly defensive of her daughter, yet she’s still wholly identifiable as a loving and concerned parent. I think she gives the strongest performance in the film. Ray Romano is also a pleasant addition, and his character ironically tries to be the voice of reason and balance, even as his own life is crumbling beneath him. I also liked Kumail’s parents, played by Anupam Kher and Zenobia Shroff. Kumail’s mother is amusing in her never-ending pursuit of potential female suitors to marry her son. However, having grown up with western values, Kumail’s own beliefs serve as a stark contrast to those of his strict and traditional family.
The way in which The Big Sick depicts the differences in American and Pakistani culture is what I think really helps to set it apart. It tackles these contrasts with both comedy and sincerity, while also drawing attention to the subtle and the not-so-subtle racism that’s often prevalent in the misunderstanding of other cultures. It’s an honest and respectful film that should be approached as open-mindedly as possible. Those of you willing to give this one a chance may find that it to be well worth your while.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.17.)
The Big Sick tells the unique, real-life love story of how Kumail Nanjiani, played by himself in the film, met the love of his life, Emily. The film begins with Kumail working as a struggling stand-up comic. After a performance one night, he meets Emily at a bar and takes her back to his place. The two of them gradually begin dating, but Kumail keeps it a secret from his strict Pakistani parents, who expect him to abide by his culture’s custom of arranged marriages. When Emily’s health unexpectedly takes a dangerous and mysterious turn, Kumail must confront his family, as well as meet Emily’s family, to confess his true feelings of love.
Allow me to begin by addressing the fact that I spent a good half of The Big Sick feeling entirely ambivalent about it. While it seemed well made, I didn’t feel particularly entertained nor engaged by it. Slowly but surely, however, the movie began to win me over, thanks primarily to the help of Ray Romano and Holly Hunter, who co-star as Emily’s parents. By the end, I appreciated and enjoyed the film, and I feel as though I would probably like it even more with a second viewing.
The movie rubbed me the wrong way early on with its not-so-romantic romance that culminated from a one-night-stand. I found the relationship of Kumail and Emily to be somewhat dull, and I was perplexed by how unfavorably it depicts both characters. Though considering the screenplay was actually written by both of them, I suppose there’s something noble and courageous to be said about their honesty. This is not a typical romanticized love story. It has two decent but flawed characters, who I felt indifferent towards at the outset but learned to care about over the course of the film.
Kumail is quite enjoyable as the lead star and I suspect this will be a breakout role for him. He has a good sense of humor and really showcases it in a couple of hysterical scenes. My favorite being a late night visit to a restaurant drive-thru, which is one of the flat-out funniest moments I’ve seen in theaters all year. I also really loved both Romano and Hunter. They’re both complex and comical characters struggling with their own strained marriage, while hesitantly getting to know Kumail and coming to terms with their daughter’s grave illness. Certainly not the best circumstances to be meeting your girlfriend’s parents, and even worse considering they knew that Kumail and Emily had broken up shortly beforehand.
Hunter’s character is volatile and highly defensive of her daughter, yet she’s still wholly identifiable as a loving and concerned parent. I think she gives the strongest performance in the film. Ray Romano is also a pleasant addition, and his character ironically tries to be the voice of reason and balance, even as his own life is crumbling beneath him. I also liked Kumail’s parents, played by Anupam Kher and Zenobia Shroff. Kumail’s mother is amusing in her never-ending pursuit of potential female suitors to marry her son. However, having grown up with western values, Kumail’s own beliefs serve as a stark contrast to those of his strict and traditional family.
The way in which The Big Sick depicts the differences in American and Pakistani culture is what I think really helps to set it apart. It tackles these contrasts with both comedy and sincerity, while also drawing attention to the subtle and the not-so-subtle racism that’s often prevalent in the misunderstanding of other cultures. It’s an honest and respectful film that should be approached as open-mindedly as possible. Those of you willing to give this one a chance may find that it to be well worth your while.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.5.17.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.