Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla Vs Mechagodzilla II (1993) in Movies
Mar 11, 2018 (Updated Mar 11, 2018)
Old-school Toho monster mash follows the trend of early-90s Godzilla movies by reinventing popular characters from 60s and 70s films. Kind of suffers from the same problem as superhero films with multiple villains (cf Spider-Man 3 or Batman Forever), in that contriving a way for all the monsters to appear and interact requires some outlandish plotting and a good deal of hand-waving of implausibilities (not to mention indulgence from the audience).
In addition to Godzilla, in this film you get Mechagodzilla (well, duh), and also giant pterodactyl Rodan and Minilla (aka Baby Godzilla). The monster battles are pretty good, though there's a slight tendency towards the combatants just standing there and zapping each other with breath-rays, and the monster suits are excellent (the Rodan puppet is particularly impressive). Set against this we must place the fact that the movie doesn't actually have a plot, as such - things just happen one after the other with no sense of theme or structure. Most of the human characters are slightly annoying too. A step down from the previous few films, but still better than much of what was to follow in the late 90s and early 2000s.
In addition to Godzilla, in this film you get Mechagodzilla (well, duh), and also giant pterodactyl Rodan and Minilla (aka Baby Godzilla). The monster battles are pretty good, though there's a slight tendency towards the combatants just standing there and zapping each other with breath-rays, and the monster suits are excellent (the Rodan puppet is particularly impressive). Set against this we must place the fact that the movie doesn't actually have a plot, as such - things just happen one after the other with no sense of theme or structure. Most of the human characters are slightly annoying too. A step down from the previous few films, but still better than much of what was to follow in the late 90s and early 2000s.
David McK (3721 KP) rated Star Wars, Vol. 7: The Ashes of Jedha in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The newest (at the time of writing) entry in Marvel's on-going Star Wars series, that sees Luke, Han, Leia et al travel to the planet of Jedha between the events of 'A New Hope' and 'The Empire Strikes Back': the planet, that is, that first appeared in the relatively-recent movie 'Rogue One' and on which the might of the Death Star was first practiced.
As such, Jedha is now a ruined planet under Imperial Occupation, with this collection (of issues number 38-43) also covering the effects of Saw Garrera's partisan group: another relatively recent addition to the whole Star Wars canon!
While Luke tries to learn more about being a Jedi as Leia seeks to form an alliance with the remaining members of that partisan group and as Han grows into a leadership role, the Empire tightens their grip on the planet.
I must admit to being a bit lost at first: although this is vol 7 in the series, the 'read in order' on the inside jacket actually places this after 'The Screaming Citadel': maybe if I'd read that, this might flow better?
As such, Jedha is now a ruined planet under Imperial Occupation, with this collection (of issues number 38-43) also covering the effects of Saw Garrera's partisan group: another relatively recent addition to the whole Star Wars canon!
While Luke tries to learn more about being a Jedi as Leia seeks to form an alliance with the remaining members of that partisan group and as Han grows into a leadership role, the Empire tightens their grip on the planet.
I must admit to being a bit lost at first: although this is vol 7 in the series, the 'read in order' on the inside jacket actually places this after 'The Screaming Citadel': maybe if I'd read that, this might flow better?
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Friend Request (2016) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
*decline*. Jesus, I usually have a wicked high tolerance for these Gen-Z-catered idiotic mainstream horror flicks but this was abysmal. I'm offended that this could even be uttered within the same sentence as the rip-roaring, unnerving, and highly idiosyncratic đđŻđ§đłđȘđŠđŻđ„đŠđ„ films which - at least for a time - were required to shit on because at the time Facebook was still this relatively new and trendy thing that kids liked... but now that it's dying can we finally admit those were actually both genius *and* truly scary? Especially after this absolutely formless drivel. Flimsily acted even by these movies' low standards, and its depiction of mental illness can be generously described as execrable - it initially begins as a sort of interesting dissection of social media etiquette and the very narrow view of what we consider to be 'weird' by its standards... but then it reveals its true colors by demonizing these very real conditions/behaviors by way of shoddy technophobic bullshit. The thing is, this actually has some good horror movie imagery in it too - a fair amount - but it's made in such a repellent way that I also don't really care. Plus it's overcut to hell.
InSpread -Share photos for Socia lmedia-
Social Networking and Photo & Video
App
By Instagram's API policy change, it was sorry Orimashi followed by a state which can not be used. ...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Follow You in Books
Dec 3, 2023
184 of 235
Kindle
Follow You
By Richard Parker
âïžâïžâïžâïžâïž
You set the trap. Now you can't escape.
When an online prank goes viral and triggers a spate of gruesome murders, documentary maker Hazel Salter watches in horror. But then Hazel's childhood friend, Meredith Hickman, is the next victim, Hazel knows she has to find out what happened to her.
Is it one killer or more? Random acts of violence or part of a bigger, twisted plan?
The police have no leads, but Hazel has a theory - one she'll stop at nothing to prove - and she also has a film crew. She'll make a documentary, catch the killer, and give Meredith justice.
Her stage is the abandoned amusement park where Meredith was found.
Her cast are the family and friends the killer left behind.
And her crew? They keep disappearing, one by one...
I absolutely loved this! Itâs the sort of horror movie Iâd watch! It all played out in my head and it was brutal. I didnât want to put it down. So so good fast paced and well written.
Kindle
Follow You
By Richard Parker
âïžâïžâïžâïžâïž
You set the trap. Now you can't escape.
When an online prank goes viral and triggers a spate of gruesome murders, documentary maker Hazel Salter watches in horror. But then Hazel's childhood friend, Meredith Hickman, is the next victim, Hazel knows she has to find out what happened to her.
Is it one killer or more? Random acts of violence or part of a bigger, twisted plan?
The police have no leads, but Hazel has a theory - one she'll stop at nothing to prove - and she also has a film crew. She'll make a documentary, catch the killer, and give Meredith justice.
Her stage is the abandoned amusement park where Meredith was found.
Her cast are the family and friends the killer left behind.
And her crew? They keep disappearing, one by one...
I absolutely loved this! Itâs the sort of horror movie Iâd watch! It all played out in my head and it was brutal. I didnât want to put it down. So so good fast paced and well written.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Secret of Marrowbone (2018) in Movies
May 14, 2019
Keep a secret
#marrowbone #marrowbonemovie is enchanting, tense & bleak psychological drama with a slow pace that ensures you feel the emotion its packed full of. To start with I feel this #film has been marketed completely wrong, its not a horror movie & more of a drama with slight horror elements (these being mainly psychological). This isnt a bad thing at all but for those of you expecting the like of #thenun you may want to avoid this one. Its also a tough movie to review for me as while i loved acts 1 & 2 so incredibly much that once the twist his in act 3 I felt a tad let down & cheated. Thats not saying act 3 is bad it just felt sub par to the rest of the film, rushed, tacked on & far too hand holding for my liking. Shot really creative & with a #gorgeous eye for cinematography at first marrowbone feels almost dreamlike with a sence of mysterious #fairytale edge to it. This doesnt last long however as what follows is an anxiety riddled downward spiral of a tale about the destruction of a family as it slowly falls apart because of its abusive past. Symbolism & metaphors are cleverly inserted everywhere from broken mirrors representing the cracks in family & a stain on the ceiling representing guilt that keeps seeping in. Watching as this #family gradually falls apart is upsetting & uncomfortable with themes of mental instability, deceit, abuse, loss & jealousy really hitting home constantly. Music is awesome too as well as the use of silence yo great pin sharp tension & dread. #anyataylorjoy steals the show here as always not only with her acting but with her beauty too. Over all its a great little film that could of been fantastic if it wasnt for its messy end chapter but its still a very well made deep, smart & well acted piece of work that id encourage film #fans to see at least once. Think #Split meets #itcomesatnight. #odeon #odeonlimitless #screamunseen #drama #horror #jumpy #scary #witch #metalillness #thesecretofmarrowbone #filmbuff #filmcritic #review #haunted #love #murder #gore #blood #mondaymotivation
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Sep 24, 2020 (Updated Sep 24, 2020)
The third and final entry in the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man films is arguably the most well known, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons, and it's a real shame as there are flashes of greatness, but the finished product is a hot mess.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our storeâs DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasnât because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. Thereâs something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. Thatâs where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while âthey will spend billions to keep this president in,â âthe next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.â Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylorâs self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was Godâs chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and youâre left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones âwasteâ and âwaistâ in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you werenât a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, itâs stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylorâs false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you havenât already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but itâs mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. Thatâs where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while âthey will spend billions to keep this president in,â âthe next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.â Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylorâs self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was Godâs chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and youâre left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones âwasteâ and âwaistâ in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you werenât a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, itâs stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylorâs false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you havenât already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but itâs mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80âs the space race had already been around for decades. While I had heard the stories of my parents watching Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon, at the time I didnât realize what it really took for those very first steps to occur. Considering we were living in a time full of space shuttles and satellites, it was easy to forget that only twenty years earlier we were still working on how to get a man into space.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. Itâs a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesnât go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. Itâs grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasnât the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Goslingâs voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. Thatâs not to say that there arenât other characters in the film that are important, they just arenât the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, thatâs what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and itâs excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. Itâs a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesnât go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. Itâs grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasnât the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Goslingâs voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. Thatâs not to say that there arenât other characters in the film that are important, they just arenât the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, thatâs what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and itâs excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
A 'small film' that packs a big punch
I'm not sure if there is an "IQ" table of Hollywood stars, but I would reckon if there is then Joseph Gordon-Levitt would rate pretty highly. Whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a highly articulate and intelligent bloke. And that intelligence filters through into his choices of movie role. If you look back at his filmography on IMDB the first thing you notice is that his output is pretty sparse and selective, and the next is that the projects he's done mostly deliver a pretty strong hit rate: "500 Days of Summer"; "Inception", "Looper", "The Dark Knight Rises"; "Don Jon".... the list is impressive.
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
