Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated Love, Death & Robots in TV
Mar 24, 2019
A Heavy Metal reboot? I'm in!
This is an anthology series, airing on Netflix. Originally, it was going to be a theatrical reboot of the Heavy Metal animated movies, but became a series instead. It's split into 18 animated shorts (well, 17 & one mostly live-action) with an average length of about 10 minutes or so each. Unlike the original Heavy Metal movie, there is nothing tying the shorts together, like the Loc-nar.
I want to say, overall, the series is great. Most of the animation is great. Some of it, like in the short "The Witness" is so realistic, you'll think you're watching actual film. However, there are some shorts where the animation is done in the choppy, crappy CGI-drawn animation & this takes away from them. Just like the original Heavy Metal, some shorts work, some don't. Fortunately, most of them work, overall. Some have problems with their endings. They seem to either have no ending, or they're just not satisfying enough. I kind of wish they were 20 minutes each. But there are also some where the ending is the best part.
My favorite short is probably "Three Robots", which is about...3 robots. They're "taking a vacation" through an apocalyptic wasteland. It's funny & smart. My least favorite is probably "When the Yogurt Took Over", which is about...sentient yogurt. Fortunately, this one is also the shortest of them. Funny enough, both of these shorts were written by the same writer.
I see people complaining about the show's sexism towards women. Yes, this is a problem. But a minor one. The show does have fan service, especially in the short "The Witness" I mentioned. There's nudity just for the sake of having nudity. I feel that although in this day & age, in America, this is frowned upon, it fits with these shorts. It's not like it's non-stop nudity, it's just here & there. It also fits with the Heavy Metal series & I'm happy that it's there.
I could talk about each short separately, but I don't think they need to be. You can watch the entire series in a few hours & it's worth it. So what you waiting for?
I want to say, overall, the series is great. Most of the animation is great. Some of it, like in the short "The Witness" is so realistic, you'll think you're watching actual film. However, there are some shorts where the animation is done in the choppy, crappy CGI-drawn animation & this takes away from them. Just like the original Heavy Metal, some shorts work, some don't. Fortunately, most of them work, overall. Some have problems with their endings. They seem to either have no ending, or they're just not satisfying enough. I kind of wish they were 20 minutes each. But there are also some where the ending is the best part.
My favorite short is probably "Three Robots", which is about...3 robots. They're "taking a vacation" through an apocalyptic wasteland. It's funny & smart. My least favorite is probably "When the Yogurt Took Over", which is about...sentient yogurt. Fortunately, this one is also the shortest of them. Funny enough, both of these shorts were written by the same writer.
I see people complaining about the show's sexism towards women. Yes, this is a problem. But a minor one. The show does have fan service, especially in the short "The Witness" I mentioned. There's nudity just for the sake of having nudity. I feel that although in this day & age, in America, this is frowned upon, it fits with these shorts. It's not like it's non-stop nudity, it's just here & there. It also fits with the Heavy Metal series & I'm happy that it's there.
I could talk about each short separately, but I don't think they need to be. You can watch the entire series in a few hours & it's worth it. So what you waiting for?
Lee (2222 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Nov 6, 2017 (Updated Nov 9, 2017)
Kenneth Branagh (1 more)
Stunning cinematography
Wasted all-star cast (1 more)
Not very interesting
All style, no substance
This review is possibly a little unfair, as I actually managed to fall asleep watching Murder On The Orient Express. In a busy cinema, early evening on a Sunday. I've only ever managed to do this a couple of times previously - once, while watching a midnight screening of Star Wars: The Force Awakens (I'm an old man, it was way past my bedtime). Another occasion was during the last Alvin and the Chipmunks movie while watching with my daughter (and I quite rightly got a dig in the ribs from her when she caught me out).
Unfortunately for me though, Kenneth Branaghs lavish retelling of this classic murder mystery is all style and no substance. Branagh himself is actually very good, and hugely entertaining as the worlds greatest detective, Hercule Poirot. However, most of the remaining all star cast just seem wasted in their roles and I just felt like I was watching a big, glossy BBC detective drama on a Sunday evening rather than a thrilling cinematic experience.
I made it through the setup and the murder itself. I also made it through some of the questioning of the many suspects too. But I think that's where my body gave up. I don't think I missed much though, and I was awake again in time for the ridiculous reveal and the explanation as to why whodunit actually dunit, but overall this was just a pretty big disappointment for me.
Unfortunately for me though, Kenneth Branaghs lavish retelling of this classic murder mystery is all style and no substance. Branagh himself is actually very good, and hugely entertaining as the worlds greatest detective, Hercule Poirot. However, most of the remaining all star cast just seem wasted in their roles and I just felt like I was watching a big, glossy BBC detective drama on a Sunday evening rather than a thrilling cinematic experience.
I made it through the setup and the murder itself. I also made it through some of the questioning of the many suspects too. But I think that's where my body gave up. I don't think I missed much though, and I was awake again in time for the ridiculous reveal and the explanation as to why whodunit actually dunit, but overall this was just a pretty big disappointment for me.
Autumn (430 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Jan 2, 2018 (Updated Jan 2, 2018)
80s references (2 more)
Immersive world building
Not just for gamers
A bit too much referencing (1 more)
Would have liked to know what the winner did with the money after the game was over
I wasn’t alive in the 80s and am not a gamer, but I still got sucked into this book. I have seen a lot of 80s movies and heard of a lot of the consoles and games mentioned, so I was able to catch/understand most of the references. A lot of world building went into this, both inside and outside the OASIS simulation, and I think it was done well. I wish it had gone into what happened after the game was over. Did the winner try to help fix this dystopian society or just buy a big mansion, live like a king and watch the rest of the world burn? I’m glad the main character was from Oklahoma, my home state, and from a city only about 2 to 3 hrs from where I live. Oklahoma isn’t usually a popular place for movies or books to take place so it was nice to see something that partly took place in my state. It was also nice that this character wasn’t portrayed as a country bumpkin being from Oklahoma. Although, his living conditions and home life are pretty standard for characters from my state. I’m excited to see how this story translates from book to movie because, if done right, I think it could be good.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Ben Wheatley recommended Come and See (1985) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated King Kong Lives (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
Ape Sh*t
Inexplicably boring and frankly quite weird attempt to cash in on the Kong name: having survived being machine gunned off the top of the Twin Towers and falling five hundred metres onto concrete (and thus proving that some gorillas just can't take a hint), Kong is in a coma being looked after by Linda Hamilton, who should have read the script before signing on. A no-mark leading man is able to hunt up a female giant gorilla to help out with a blood transfusion, but when the two apes get it on and escape, there's panic all round.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Fun and Exhilarating
War is coming between Earth and the underwater world of Atlantis. Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa), half-human half Atlantean, seeks to end the war before it spirals out of control. Despite its shortcomings, I’ll get this out of the way now: Aquaman absolutely rocks.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 10
Characters: 8
Arthur’s character grew on me as the movie progressed. He’s a tough guy, no doubt, but I also appreciated his honesty in expressing fear at the same time. He wasn’t reckless, rather he was someone that fully understood the stakes. Despite this clearly being an action blockbuster, I appreciate the efforts in trying to make the characters fun and exhilarating.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
This movie won’t make you think. In fact, there are a number of times where it feels designed to do just the opposite. It’s memorability comes in the fact that I can honestly say I’ve never really seen anything like it. The scenes, sequences, and setpieces try really hard and it’s very endearing. The visuals are beautiful particularly during the underwater battle sequences. Just damn beautiful to watch. It’s Finding Nemo on steroids.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Didn’t linger, ended at exactly the right time with something feasible and simple. A great finish for an overall great experience.
Overall: 92
If you’re a fan of sports, you might relate to this analogy: Ever watch a playoff series and the underdog wins the first game? You say to yourself, “Meh, it’s one game. They’ll lose the next four.” Then they win the next game and another game. Your eyes start to get big as you realize, “They might actually do this!” DC, I’m looking at you. I’m rooting so hard that you guys keep the train rolling. Aquaman is a hit.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 10
Characters: 8
Arthur’s character grew on me as the movie progressed. He’s a tough guy, no doubt, but I also appreciated his honesty in expressing fear at the same time. He wasn’t reckless, rather he was someone that fully understood the stakes. Despite this clearly being an action blockbuster, I appreciate the efforts in trying to make the characters fun and exhilarating.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
This movie won’t make you think. In fact, there are a number of times where it feels designed to do just the opposite. It’s memorability comes in the fact that I can honestly say I’ve never really seen anything like it. The scenes, sequences, and setpieces try really hard and it’s very endearing. The visuals are beautiful particularly during the underwater battle sequences. Just damn beautiful to watch. It’s Finding Nemo on steroids.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Didn’t linger, ended at exactly the right time with something feasible and simple. A great finish for an overall great experience.
Overall: 92
If you’re a fan of sports, you might relate to this analogy: Ever watch a playoff series and the underdog wins the first game? You say to yourself, “Meh, it’s one game. They’ll lose the next four.” Then they win the next game and another game. Your eyes start to get big as you realize, “They might actually do this!” DC, I’m looking at you. I’m rooting so hard that you guys keep the train rolling. Aquaman is a hit.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Babysitter (2017) in Movies
Dec 5, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
On the surface, The Babysitter looks like a by the numbers comedy horror, but thanks in no small part to Samara Weaving, it's actually a bit more than that.
Samara Weaving plays Bee, the titular babysitter, who watches over (a not so convincing)12 year old Cole (Judah Lewis) when his parents head off on vacation.
After Cole has gone to bed, he secretly stays up to see what Bee gets up to after hours, and things take a bloody turn when it become apparent that Bee and her friends are part of a Satan worshipping murder cult.
It's a simple and silly premise, but it works pretty well in this instance.
The opening 20 minutes is all out silly comedy. The chemistry between the two leads is clearly strong and a huge highlight. It's obvious that the two of them were having a blast filming this.
When the Satan worshipping murder cult part comes into play, the gore comes thick and fast (there are some genuinely nasty moments), but it continues to be funny.
The Babysitter made me laugh quite a bit, with some ridiculous dialogue and self awareness, especially from Robbie Amell.
Director McG makes a lot of Scott Pilgrim-esque style choices, but never goes too overboard, making sure they land for the most part.
The rest of the characters are portrayed as cliché annoying millennial types, obviously written as characters that we want to die, but the joke wears thin pretty quickly, especially in the case of Bella Thorne's character.
The movie is also guilty of the often seen try-hard pop culture discussion sequences, which are a little cringey, but these kind of complaints are minimal.
With an 85 minute runtime, The Babysitter is a swift and fun horror comedy romp that has a decent lead. A solid 7/10.
Samara Weaving plays Bee, the titular babysitter, who watches over (a not so convincing)12 year old Cole (Judah Lewis) when his parents head off on vacation.
After Cole has gone to bed, he secretly stays up to see what Bee gets up to after hours, and things take a bloody turn when it become apparent that Bee and her friends are part of a Satan worshipping murder cult.
It's a simple and silly premise, but it works pretty well in this instance.
The opening 20 minutes is all out silly comedy. The chemistry between the two leads is clearly strong and a huge highlight. It's obvious that the two of them were having a blast filming this.
When the Satan worshipping murder cult part comes into play, the gore comes thick and fast (there are some genuinely nasty moments), but it continues to be funny.
The Babysitter made me laugh quite a bit, with some ridiculous dialogue and self awareness, especially from Robbie Amell.
Director McG makes a lot of Scott Pilgrim-esque style choices, but never goes too overboard, making sure they land for the most part.
The rest of the characters are portrayed as cliché annoying millennial types, obviously written as characters that we want to die, but the joke wears thin pretty quickly, especially in the case of Bella Thorne's character.
The movie is also guilty of the often seen try-hard pop culture discussion sequences, which are a little cringey, but these kind of complaints are minimal.
With an 85 minute runtime, The Babysitter is a swift and fun horror comedy romp that has a decent lead. A solid 7/10.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Sep 11, 2020
Fair play, Underwater doesn't fuck around - 2 minutes in and all hell starts breaking loose and shit hits the fan pretty relentlessly until the credits roll. It's clear that director William Eubank wants your attention from the beginning - unfortunately it doesn't quite stay like this throughout...
I actually enjoyed Underwater for the most part, it's just that somewhere in the middle, it really starts to drag a bit, and I'm not even quite sure why - there's always something going on but it just lost me a bit.
Fortunately, the up and down middle act is book-ended by a very strong and tense first act, and one hell of a final third - no spoilers here but holy fuck!!!
The ending 'reveal' honestly elevates Underwater to loftier heights.
It also benefits from a good cast. Kristen Stewart has really grown on me in recent years and she's a fantastic lead in this. Always a pleasure to have Jessica Henwick and John Gallagher Jr. onscreen as well.
As per usual, I couldn't really get on with T.J. Miller - there's just something about that dude that always feels a bit too try hard - people liked him in Deadpool and now he's just typecast as the comic relief - Underwater doesn't really need comic relief.
There are some genuinely tense moments here and there, and the Aliens vibes are prominent - it's of course a few tiers under Aliens, but the bottom of the sea feels just as empty and otherworldly as space, and the creature designs are suitably eerie. The low light levels cover up a lot of CGI, so it never looks too fake either, with the exception of a couple of dodgy gore effects.
Underwater is a decent enough sci-fi-horror thriller that suffer a bit from pacing issues, but a good watch for those of you who like movie monsters.
I actually enjoyed Underwater for the most part, it's just that somewhere in the middle, it really starts to drag a bit, and I'm not even quite sure why - there's always something going on but it just lost me a bit.
Fortunately, the up and down middle act is book-ended by a very strong and tense first act, and one hell of a final third - no spoilers here but holy fuck!!!
The ending 'reveal' honestly elevates Underwater to loftier heights.
It also benefits from a good cast. Kristen Stewart has really grown on me in recent years and she's a fantastic lead in this. Always a pleasure to have Jessica Henwick and John Gallagher Jr. onscreen as well.
As per usual, I couldn't really get on with T.J. Miller - there's just something about that dude that always feels a bit too try hard - people liked him in Deadpool and now he's just typecast as the comic relief - Underwater doesn't really need comic relief.
There are some genuinely tense moments here and there, and the Aliens vibes are prominent - it's of course a few tiers under Aliens, but the bottom of the sea feels just as empty and otherworldly as space, and the creature designs are suitably eerie. The low light levels cover up a lot of CGI, so it never looks too fake either, with the exception of a couple of dodgy gore effects.
Underwater is a decent enough sci-fi-horror thriller that suffer a bit from pacing issues, but a good watch for those of you who like movie monsters.
