Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Missionary (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Directed by Anthony DiBlasi (whom is no stranger to the horror genre) ‘Missionary’ stars Dawn Olivieri (Heroes, True Blood, House Of Lies, CSI, How I Met Your Mother, Stargate Atlantis, The Vampire Diaries, Entourage, American Hustle) as Katherine, a young single mother recently separated from her husband Ian portrayed by actor Kip Pardue (Remember The Titans, Driven, The Rules Of Attraction, Hostel: Part 3, Mad Men, House) who is struggling to work full time, go to school, and raise their son Kesley (Conner Christie). One afternoon while helping Kelsey practice before tryouts for the junior high football team they are visited buy two Mormon missionaries. One of the two, Elder Kevin Brock (Mitch Ryan) offers to help Kelsey practice thereby ‘bending the rules’ regarding Mormons and sports under the guise of hoping to convert Katherine and Kelsey to the Mormon faith. In reality, Kevin and Katherine become infatuated with each other despite their 10 year age difference and begin an affair which also seriously compromises what Katherine likes to refer to as ‘the rules in the Mormon handbook’. While Katherine sees this as only a ‘temporary’ yet passionate sexual relationship, Kevin becomes more and more obsessed not only with Katherine but becoming a father figure to her young son Kelsey and based upon ‘his interpretation’ of Mormon doctrine believes that Katherine and Kesley are the family he’s been seeking since he joined the Mormon and that they will become his ‘celestial family’. Eventually, Katherine decides that the relationship is not good for either of them and instead choose to reconcile with her husband Ian and attempts to quietly end her relationship with Kevin. Now obsessed and bordering on psychotic, Kevin begins to stalk Katherine and her son determined to make them his ‘family’ at any cost.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
Jimmy Ray Davis (0 KP) created a post
Mar 4, 2018
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Roads Not Taken (2020) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020
Javier Bardem and Elle Fanning act their socks off (1 more)
Robbie Ryan cinematography is Oscar worthy
Pain and not a lot of Glory.
If you like your movies action packed you are going to dislike this movie. If you like light and uplifting stories you are going to positively loathe this one! For everyone else, "The Roads Not Taken" is a very thought-provoking piece of film-making from writer/director Sally Potter that I have a lot of respect for. Even more so, since I learned that the film is based on the director's time caring for her now deceased brother Nic, diagnosed with early onset dementia in 2010.
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2020
I found this movie to be good, but also kind of boring. The best part of it was Sebastian Stan and it's really because he looks hot in literally everything he does - even with a super creepy mustache. I also really loved Allison Janney. I think she's a phenomenal actress and I've been loving watching her work lately.
It's not that I didn't like Margot Robbie, it's more that I didn't love her. I think she's talented and she very obviously gives 100% to her work, I just wasn't obsessed with her. I don't know. The other thing that I didn't like was the CGI. I'm not sure if it could've been done better because I'm not in the industry (obviously), but I don't think it was as seamless as they wanted it to be. I liked that they tried to give you the close-ups because we don't often get that with stunts or things that the actors don't know how to do, but I almost would've preferred not seeing her face and it being seamless than seeing her face and it being what it was.
Overall, I think this film is a good watch. It's not a favorite but it's definitely not the worst thing I've seen. I could've gone without watching it and I was right to wait until it was available on digital instead of seeing it in theaters.
It's not that I didn't like Margot Robbie, it's more that I didn't love her. I think she's talented and she very obviously gives 100% to her work, I just wasn't obsessed with her. I don't know. The other thing that I didn't like was the CGI. I'm not sure if it could've been done better because I'm not in the industry (obviously), but I don't think it was as seamless as they wanted it to be. I liked that they tried to give you the close-ups because we don't often get that with stunts or things that the actors don't know how to do, but I almost would've preferred not seeing her face and it being seamless than seeing her face and it being what it was.
Overall, I think this film is a good watch. It's not a favorite but it's definitely not the worst thing I've seen. I could've gone without watching it and I was right to wait until it was available on digital instead of seeing it in theaters.
Alice (117 KP) rated The Switch in Books
Mar 3, 2021
Thank you to NetGalley and Macmillan Audio and Flatiron Books for early access to this audiobook
I wholeheartedly adored this book! After reading and loving The Flat Share I knew I wanted to read this book as well so when I saw it was available as an audiobook on NetGalley I jumped at the chance to get to read it. Also, the fact that it was narrated by the absolute ICON that is Alison Steadman and Normal People's Daisy Edgar-Jones really sold it to me! I love when audiobooks have multiple perspectives narrated by different actors as I feel like it adds a lot to the story that you don't always get from a single narrator. This was just so charmingly Beth O'Leary and I loved this one just as much - if not more than I loved The Flat Share. I loved all of the characters and this was such a fun read but it also deals with very serious topics as well such as death, grief and abuse but all rolled up in a charming little tale of love, friendship and family. It gave me major Hallmark Christmas movie vibes as in I kind of knew how it was going to end right at the start but it was so fun and sweet and it was nice just to do life with the characters. I couldn't recommend this book enough!
I wholeheartedly adored this book! After reading and loving The Flat Share I knew I wanted to read this book as well so when I saw it was available as an audiobook on NetGalley I jumped at the chance to get to read it. Also, the fact that it was narrated by the absolute ICON that is Alison Steadman and Normal People's Daisy Edgar-Jones really sold it to me! I love when audiobooks have multiple perspectives narrated by different actors as I feel like it adds a lot to the story that you don't always get from a single narrator. This was just so charmingly Beth O'Leary and I loved this one just as much - if not more than I loved The Flat Share. I loved all of the characters and this was such a fun read but it also deals with very serious topics as well such as death, grief and abuse but all rolled up in a charming little tale of love, friendship and family. It gave me major Hallmark Christmas movie vibes as in I kind of knew how it was going to end right at the start but it was so fun and sweet and it was nice just to do life with the characters. I couldn't recommend this book enough!
Lenard (726 KP) rated Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) in Movies
Jul 28, 2019
John Hughes Film Inside a Superhero Cartoon
Spider-Man: Far From Home is the prototypical teen film from the eighties that was not written with the keen insight of John Hughes or one of his proteges. There is the teen girl who kind of likes this boy, but they are friends and she is afraid of losing him as a friend if they start to date. She doesn't flirt with embarrassingly tossed off factoids that only attract him more. There is also a dorky guy who is in love with a girl in his school so instead of directly asking her out he comes up with an elaborate plot to win her over. But at least the plan doesn't end in rape where the sex causes the dream girl to fall head over heels in love. In addition to our lovers, there is a romantic rival who blackmails the guy so he can't attempt wooing the girl. There is a horndog best friend who tries to convince the guy to give up a monogamous relationship for casual sex with multiple partners on an European vacation. There is the bully who hates the dorky guy, but is smitten with the hero who is the dorky guy in disguise, i.e., Teen Wolf. There is a second milquetoast girl who makes occasional appearances in the film so it is not some sausage fest with one female character in search of love. Then, there are a lot of ineffectual adults in the film except for one sympathetic adult who serves as a mentor. The mentor tries to help out teen to win the love of his life and figure out his path in life. And, there is also a heartless boss the teen has to work with who rides his ass and makes him want to quit, but he needs the money. Against all odds, the dorky guy succeeds and transitions into a functional adult male of some character.
Overall, the movie is extremely satisfactory and sets up a whole new set of Marvel movies. But it leaves several huge questions due to the credit cookies, one of which is Where is Maria Hill? (not really a spoiler)
Overall, the movie is extremely satisfactory and sets up a whole new set of Marvel movies. But it leaves several huge questions due to the credit cookies, one of which is Where is Maria Hill? (not really a spoiler)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 7, 2020)
The third entry in the Scream franchise is a mixed bag to say the least. It takes everything that made the first two so enjoyable, and throws more of it at the audience, but unfortunately it just doesn't land as well as one would hope.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Scream is known for being a meta commentary on the general ins and outs of the horror genre, but I would argue that it goes a little overboard this time around. A big part of the plot revolves around a huge retcon, changing the established backstory set up in the first movie. Cue a somewhat forced cameo from fan favourite character Randy to explain the rules of a trilogy to the surviving leads (and poke fun at this plot development) but it fails to distract from the fact that this narrative is a complete mess.
The killers motives and patterns are unclear and constantly change, and the eventual twist and identify reveal of this movies Ghostface is hugely underwhelming, and is just re treading ground that has already been explored in the previous Scream films. Also, that voice changing plot device is just dumb.
In response to the public outcry of media violence following the Columbine shootings, there is a lot less gore this time around which also hurts the overall experience. It loses its shock factor that was particularly prevalent in the original, and gives the film a sort of blunt edge, and instead focuses on the hit and miss comedy aspect.
All this being said, Scream 3 is still enjoyable when it needs to be. The returning trio of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette is essential to that particular element. These characters have been fleshed out well over these movies, and seeing them together on screen is always a treat. Everyone else is largely forgettable, but the film manages to shoehorn in cameos from Jay and Silent Bob, and Carrie Fisher, which just adds to surrealism of it all.
Not Wes Craven's finest hour by a long shot, but still an enjoyable enough slasher, and still a part of a hugely important horror series.
Ronyell (38 KP) rated How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Jim Carrey Grinch!
In the town of Whoville, all the Whos were getting ready it celebrate Christmas, but there was one Who that was curious about the true meaning of Christmas and that was Cindy Lou Who herself. Not only was Cindy Lou wondering about the true meaning of Christmas, but she was curious about one person who doesn't live in Whoville and that's the Grinch himself. The Whos almost never talk about the Grinch or want to be reminded of him, but Cindy Lou wanted to be friends with the Grinch and tried to invite him to the Whoville celebration. But, when the Grinch is humiliated at the celebration, he decided that he will steal all the Whos' presents on Christmas Eve.
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
Wow! I was actually pretty surprised that I enjoyed this movie! I never would have thought that Jim Carrey would do a great job at portraying the Grinch! Jim Carrey made the Grinch's character much more humorous and hammy, which made the film much funnier in tone and the Grinchs' jokes easily land at the right times. Taylor Momsen was fantastic as Cindy Lou Who as Cindy is shown as being a friendly and determined girl who only wanted to be friends with the Grinch and I liked the fact that she truly cares for the Grinch and only wanted to make him happy. James Horner's music was probably the highlight of this film as it surprisingly goes well with the emotional scenes in the movie, such as during the scene where we learn about the Grinch's tragic backstory. The special effects were surprisingly well done for the year 2000 and the film did a fantastic job at showcasing the bizarre yet beautiful world of Whoville and greatly captured the creative style from the original Dr. Seuss book.
My biggest issue with this movie is that the Whos seem to be portrayed in a negative way as they are much more cruel towards the Grinch in this version than in the original book and the 1960s cartoon special. Also, there were times where Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch got so hammy that I couldn't take his more emotional scenes seriously, like he constantly gets upset whenever the Whos teased him. I also didn't like the fact that Martha, the Grinch's love interest, didn't have much of a role in the film other than just standing around and looking at the scenery and being a love interest.
I always have a problem with certain love interests not having much to do in the film other than just being defined as a love interest to the protagonist and not having a personality of their own. It would have been great if Martha had more scenes with the Grinch so that their relationship would be much more believable to me.
Overall, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is one of the most hilarious interpretations of the Grinch ever made on film and it is definitely worth the watch!
Originally posted on: https://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/movie-review-how-grinch-stole-christmas.html
New Street Art
Book
Street art is part of every cityscape. By street art, we mean the crazy and wonderful stencils,...