Search
Search results
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The Toothless Croc Adventure that bit off more than it could chew
If you are big horror fan, like I am, then you will no doubt have seen and loved Jaws at some point.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Haunting of Bly Manor in TV
Oct 11, 2020
Yet another re-telling of The Turn of the Screw
This is a re-telling of The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, written in 1898. The last re-telling was 2020s The Turning, which was terrible. So how is this version?
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
In the last episode of this series, a character says, "This wasn't a ghost story, it was a love story." which is true. Sort of. It's a ghost story in the fact that it has ghosts in it. It's a love story in that two people fall in love. But it's really all about the characters. They are very good characters & acted out very well. I'll even give Henry Thomas credit for trying a British accent, even if his face contorted like someone was running a current through his face every time he talked. Entire episodes are sometimes devoted to a character. And this is the main problem. It's fine to give some character development, but this series is so stretched out. It's 9 episodes that could have been 3 or 4 episodes and worked out much better. Each person's story also jumps back in time, then forward, then back, then back again, then forward, then back. It's pacing can be real bad & quite frankly can be real boring at times.
Sometimes I think how can this story be remade 35 times now & still there's no great film version. It's a good story. It's an interesting idea. But, it's also weird & sometimes confusing & sometimes all over the place. It's got to be tight, but it's also got to be fleshed out enough that we care about the characters. Which as I said, is what it's all about.
Now, is it a ghost story? I already said yes. Is it a horror series? Well, I would say no. It's not scary. It's not creepy. It doesn't even have jump scares, which is normally good, but I would have enjoyed one or two to be honest. What it does have, as I've stated, is characters. But it also has atmosphere & great settings. The manor itself is almost it's own character. But as much as it is dark & there are things hiding in the corners or even in plain sight, it's just doesn't have that creep factor. Even the little girl shushes a ghost when it won't shut up. There's no sense of real evil or malevolence going on.
Now it sounds like I hated this series, but I didn't. I liked it. It was not what I expected, being the second season of the anthology "The Haunting" series, which started with the phenomenal "The Haunting of Hill House". But, if it had been just like Hill House, I probably would have been bored & just re-watched the first season again. So, I'm glad it was different. But like I said, it was stretched out far longer than it should have been.
Now, after we watched the entire series, my wife said that she liked it & would re-watch it maybe in 5 years. and gives it a 6 out of 10 as well. I'm sure a re-watch would be good for seeing things you did not catch the first time, but feel it'd be better to move on to something different. If you're looking for something scary to watch this Halloween series, then you can skip this. Unless you're in the mood to watch some good actors, playing good characters, with an interesting movie & have lots of free time. However, if you didn't see the first season "Hill House", then watch that instead.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Just about everybody knows the stories revolving around the U.S.S. Enterprise and it's crew lead by Captain James Tiberius Kirk. This reboot is an alternate reality to what happened in those familiar stories chronicling the early days of how the crew came together, went through the ranks of star fleet, and basically became the characters every Trekkie knows and loves today. The only issues this movie may have had was if it would appeal to people who weren't fans of the original Star Trek and if it would be enjoyable to those people. Considering it was the number one movie in the country in its opening weekend, brought in another $43 million its second weekend in theaters (bringing its grand total to over $147 million), and has glowing reviews on both IMDb (8.5/10, over 50,000 votes, #71 in the top 250 movies) and Rotten Tomatoes (95% fresh, 245 fresh reviews, rated 8.1/10), the answer seems obvious.
Star Trek exceeded all of my expectations. I'm not a Trekkie, but this is the movie that should have kicked off the summer season. The film is somehow capable of keeping the same essence of the original series yet inject a breath of fresh air into the franchise with new faces representing familiar characters. The film really appears to a wide range of moviegoers since it has just about everything anyone is looking for when they go to the movies and affectively blends action, comedy, sci-fi, and romance into one sensational adventure. The cast is truly superb. Karl Urban practically channeled DeForest Kelley in his portrayal of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy and Simon Pegg as Scotty stole every scene he was in. Zachary Quinto fit the young Spock character like a glove. I could go on and on. There really wasn't a poor performance from anyone.
The only minor complaint I have about the film was the lens flare effect they seemed to use throughout the film. It was hardly noticeable at times, but I remember it being a bit irritating towards the last half of the film. Other than that, I'd like to see more of Scotty in the sequel. But that's more of a suggestion than anything.
Star Trek is a fun and exciting film that's really for everyone. The film is a little over two hours long, but it feels much shorter. Go ahead and group this with Batman Begins as one of the successful reboots that's also incredibly enjoyable.
Star Trek exceeded all of my expectations. I'm not a Trekkie, but this is the movie that should have kicked off the summer season. The film is somehow capable of keeping the same essence of the original series yet inject a breath of fresh air into the franchise with new faces representing familiar characters. The film really appears to a wide range of moviegoers since it has just about everything anyone is looking for when they go to the movies and affectively blends action, comedy, sci-fi, and romance into one sensational adventure. The cast is truly superb. Karl Urban practically channeled DeForest Kelley in his portrayal of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy and Simon Pegg as Scotty stole every scene he was in. Zachary Quinto fit the young Spock character like a glove. I could go on and on. There really wasn't a poor performance from anyone.
The only minor complaint I have about the film was the lens flare effect they seemed to use throughout the film. It was hardly noticeable at times, but I remember it being a bit irritating towards the last half of the film. Other than that, I'd like to see more of Scotty in the sequel. But that's more of a suggestion than anything.
Star Trek is a fun and exciting film that's really for everyone. The film is a little over two hours long, but it feels much shorter. Go ahead and group this with Batman Begins as one of the successful reboots that's also incredibly enjoyable.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Whiplash (2014) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Whiplash makes for a painfully tense and terrifying learning experience that is nothing short of cinematic brilliance. It'll have you on the edge of your seat, with your heart still pounding even after it's over.
I believe that there’s a desire in all of us to achieve greatness. A deep, internal yearning for importance, respect, and acceptance. We want to be remembered and we want to fulfill a sense of purpose in our lives. For Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller), the central character in the 2014 Best Picture nominated film Whiplash, that desire is to be one of the all-time great jazz drummers. Of course, he knows that accomplishing such a goal will require a firmly fixed focus, an uncompromising dedication, and endless hours of practice. What he surely wasn’t expecting was to run into a teacher like Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), who will stop at nothing in order to push his students to strive to be their very best. Whiplash makes for a painfully tense and terrifying learning experience that is nothing short of cinematic brilliance.
Andrew is a first-year student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York where the presence of their great head music conductor, Terence Fletcher, looms over everyone. Fletcher is well-known, respected, and feared. More importantly, he is their ticket to success as musicians. Landing a spot in his band is a coveted high honor. Earning his respect is even greater. Though under Fletcher’s guidance, success doesn’t come easy. He rules over the school like a maniacal dictator and he demands absolute perfection from his students. After all, he has a highly revered reputation to preserve, and he’s not about to let anyone jeopardize it. Andrew finds himself lucky enough to be chosen to rehearse with Fletcher’s band, but he’s soon tested, humiliated, abused, and pushed to the limit by his short-tempered instructor.
Already something of a loner, Andrew delves even deeper within due to pressure from his teacher, turning his passion for music into an unhealthy obsession. He cuts off contact with others and devotes himself entirely to practicing. With fingers bloodied from extensive drumming, he simply bandages them up and keeps at it. Not only is his music playing taking control of his life, but it’s also clearly taking a toll on his mental health. Even more troubling for Andrew is that no matter how hard he tries, Fletcher is never satisfied, and he torments his students until they get things right, even if it means practicing all night. Resentment and tension rapidly rise for Andrew as he approaches his breaking point, resulting in the film’s unforgettably tense conclusion.
Whiplash is no walk in the park. It will have you sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense and terror, with your heart still pounding even after it’s over. It’s an emotional horror for young Andrew who is put through Hell by his mad musical conductor. I was legitimately in fear for his life and sanity. While the movie has given me a greater respect for musicians, and jazz bands in particular, it sure makes me feel glad that I was never in band!
Whiplash is remarkable in its design and execution. The film’s cinematography shows a wonderfully adept eye for camera angles, and gives this low-budget film a distinguished look. The director revels in the closeness of the scene, putting us right alongside Andrew as he comes face-to-face with the ever-menacing Fletcher. It’s unbelievably tense and uncomfortable to watch while he’s being verbally and physically assaulted right before your eyes. The film’s Oscar-winning editing finds the right tempo with knowing when to cut and when to linger. It also expertly accompanies the music with its barrage of clear, fast-paced shots. Of course, Whiplash is also very respectful to its music sources, and it does an amazing job in showcasing the outrageous musical talent on display.
The performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are sensational. It is estimated that roughly forty percent of the drumming you see by Andrew in Whiplash was actually performed by Teller. Considering the ridiculous amount of skill involved in these jazz band classics, that statistic should not be understated in the least. Teller puts on an incredible display and pours his heart into this movie. He carries the film, appearing in every single scene, and makes for a believable transition of character under the strict discipline of Fletcher. Even more extraordinary is J.K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor with this performance. Simmons injects his character with an intense ferocity that demands your attention. He terrorizes his musicians while conducting with an iron fist. Yet there’s far more to his character than just being a bully. While I disagreed with his abusive methods, I couldn’t argue against his intended result. His character’s extreme conduct will no doubt take things too far for some viewers, but despite all of his anger, I still found Fletcher to be remarkably fascinating. In the end, as deserving of hatred as he may be, I couldn’t help but feel some level of respect for him, and I think that really speaks to the quality of the film.
Whiplash is an emotionally stirring masterpiece that questions how much is too much when it comes to pushing someone to be their best. It also explores the emotional and psychological harm that can result from that level of pressure and abuse. The movie is bolstered by two tense and energetic performances from Miles and Simmons, who are deserving of all of their praise and accolades. You don’t have to be a fan of jazz music to enjoy this phenomenal film. I found the music to be intoxicating, but the real strength of the movie is the teacher and student dynamic between Andrew and Fletcher. With a diabolically delightful and brilliant ending, these two characters have achieved an esteemed level of movie greatness that make Whiplash a must-see!
Andrew is a first-year student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York where the presence of their great head music conductor, Terence Fletcher, looms over everyone. Fletcher is well-known, respected, and feared. More importantly, he is their ticket to success as musicians. Landing a spot in his band is a coveted high honor. Earning his respect is even greater. Though under Fletcher’s guidance, success doesn’t come easy. He rules over the school like a maniacal dictator and he demands absolute perfection from his students. After all, he has a highly revered reputation to preserve, and he’s not about to let anyone jeopardize it. Andrew finds himself lucky enough to be chosen to rehearse with Fletcher’s band, but he’s soon tested, humiliated, abused, and pushed to the limit by his short-tempered instructor.
Already something of a loner, Andrew delves even deeper within due to pressure from his teacher, turning his passion for music into an unhealthy obsession. He cuts off contact with others and devotes himself entirely to practicing. With fingers bloodied from extensive drumming, he simply bandages them up and keeps at it. Not only is his music playing taking control of his life, but it’s also clearly taking a toll on his mental health. Even more troubling for Andrew is that no matter how hard he tries, Fletcher is never satisfied, and he torments his students until they get things right, even if it means practicing all night. Resentment and tension rapidly rise for Andrew as he approaches his breaking point, resulting in the film’s unforgettably tense conclusion.
Whiplash is no walk in the park. It will have you sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense and terror, with your heart still pounding even after it’s over. It’s an emotional horror for young Andrew who is put through Hell by his mad musical conductor. I was legitimately in fear for his life and sanity. While the movie has given me a greater respect for musicians, and jazz bands in particular, it sure makes me feel glad that I was never in band!
Whiplash is remarkable in its design and execution. The film’s cinematography shows a wonderfully adept eye for camera angles, and gives this low-budget film a distinguished look. The director revels in the closeness of the scene, putting us right alongside Andrew as he comes face-to-face with the ever-menacing Fletcher. It’s unbelievably tense and uncomfortable to watch while he’s being verbally and physically assaulted right before your eyes. The film’s Oscar-winning editing finds the right tempo with knowing when to cut and when to linger. It also expertly accompanies the music with its barrage of clear, fast-paced shots. Of course, Whiplash is also very respectful to its music sources, and it does an amazing job in showcasing the outrageous musical talent on display.
The performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are sensational. It is estimated that roughly forty percent of the drumming you see by Andrew in Whiplash was actually performed by Teller. Considering the ridiculous amount of skill involved in these jazz band classics, that statistic should not be understated in the least. Teller puts on an incredible display and pours his heart into this movie. He carries the film, appearing in every single scene, and makes for a believable transition of character under the strict discipline of Fletcher. Even more extraordinary is J.K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor with this performance. Simmons injects his character with an intense ferocity that demands your attention. He terrorizes his musicians while conducting with an iron fist. Yet there’s far more to his character than just being a bully. While I disagreed with his abusive methods, I couldn’t argue against his intended result. His character’s extreme conduct will no doubt take things too far for some viewers, but despite all of his anger, I still found Fletcher to be remarkably fascinating. In the end, as deserving of hatred as he may be, I couldn’t help but feel some level of respect for him, and I think that really speaks to the quality of the film.
Whiplash is an emotionally stirring masterpiece that questions how much is too much when it comes to pushing someone to be their best. It also explores the emotional and psychological harm that can result from that level of pressure and abuse. The movie is bolstered by two tense and energetic performances from Miles and Simmons, who are deserving of all of their praise and accolades. You don’t have to be a fan of jazz music to enjoy this phenomenal film. I found the music to be intoxicating, but the real strength of the movie is the teacher and student dynamic between Andrew and Fletcher. With a diabolically delightful and brilliant ending, these two characters have achieved an esteemed level of movie greatness that make Whiplash a must-see!
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Giver in Books
Sep 7, 2017
A strange book.
So, I know The Giver has been out for a long time, and I know they made a movie, but somehow I’d never read or watched it. But on the recommendation of a friend, I finally have. What a strange little book! It definitely belongs in the same realm as Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and The Handmaid’s Tale – which are among my favorite books – but the ending was tremendously unsatisfying. It’s the first book in a quartet, though, so I’m hoping the other three, which I have requested from the library, will tie up the loose ends. It definitely feels like it’s only the first installment of a story.
The dystopian society in this book has effectively banished most feelings. But to get rid of hate and war and prejudice, they also had to banish the memories and feelings of individuality and difference. With everyone and everything the same, they’re mostly incapable of feeling true love or happiness. So they all live in peace – but it’s a complacent, uncaring peace. It’s not peace because of love, it’s peace because of the absence of passionate feelings. Whether this is good or not, well, that’s up to the reader to decide for themselves. The actions of the main character, who aims to disrupt that peace, could be seen as good or bad.
I’m not actually entirely sure how I feel about this book. After reading the next three – Gathering Blue (2000), Messenger (2004), and Son (2012), I'm still at a bit of a loss. These were just...odd.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
The dystopian society in this book has effectively banished most feelings. But to get rid of hate and war and prejudice, they also had to banish the memories and feelings of individuality and difference. With everyone and everything the same, they’re mostly incapable of feeling true love or happiness. So they all live in peace – but it’s a complacent, uncaring peace. It’s not peace because of love, it’s peace because of the absence of passionate feelings. Whether this is good or not, well, that’s up to the reader to decide for themselves. The actions of the main character, who aims to disrupt that peace, could be seen as good or bad.
I’m not actually entirely sure how I feel about this book. After reading the next three – Gathering Blue (2000), Messenger (2004), and Son (2012), I'm still at a bit of a loss. These were just...odd.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Awix (3310 KP) rated Mothra (1961) in Movies
Feb 11, 2018 (Updated Feb 11, 2018)
You're going to need some bigger mothballs
The film that sets the standard for rampaging-giant-mystic-butterfly pictures is one of the best Toho monster movies, clearly owing a debt to King Kong but adding a lovely veneer of charming Japanese weirdness to the recipe. Evil Rosilicans (i.e., Americans) gatecrash a Japanese expedition to a mysterious island and end up kidnapping the twin fairies in charge of the place and forcing them to appear in a stage musical (this film has some banging tunes, by the way). Disgruntled natives wake up Mothra, butterfly-god protector of the island, who promptly heads for Japan to express displeasure as only a 180 metre long larva can.
Much more of a fantasy movie than the rest of the Godzilla series (with which it is in continuity; Mothra and Godzilla have been fighting together and against each other for over fifty years), and also with an unambiguously sympathetic monster, this is probably a more technically adept and simply enjoyable film than any of its immediate predecessors from Toho. The story is vaultingly peculiar in some ways, but at least it has originality on its side. The attempt to disguise where Rosilica is really supposed to be falls flat as soon as we learn one of its major cities is called New Kirk, but you can't fault one of these movies for being just a little bit odd. Perhaps the lack of another monster for Mothra to fight at the end is a weakness in the story, but if so it is less obvious than is usually the case in this sort of film. An endearing and engaging piece of entertainment.
Much more of a fantasy movie than the rest of the Godzilla series (with which it is in continuity; Mothra and Godzilla have been fighting together and against each other for over fifty years), and also with an unambiguously sympathetic monster, this is probably a more technically adept and simply enjoyable film than any of its immediate predecessors from Toho. The story is vaultingly peculiar in some ways, but at least it has originality on its side. The attempt to disguise where Rosilica is really supposed to be falls flat as soon as we learn one of its major cities is called New Kirk, but you can't fault one of these movies for being just a little bit odd. Perhaps the lack of another monster for Mothra to fight at the end is a weakness in the story, but if so it is less obvious than is usually the case in this sort of film. An endearing and engaging piece of entertainment.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Sharknado 2: The Second One (2014) in Movies
Jan 13, 2020 (Updated May 7, 2020)
Shitenado
One (sort of) positive thing that I will say about Sharknado 2 is that it's delightfully absurd. You will ask yourself frequently why on Earth you're still watching but will perhaps find that you can't look away.
The first Sharknado thought that it was so bad it was good, when in reality l, it is 100% shit. Sharknado 2 on the other hand, is only 99% shit. During the opening scene set on a plane, I found myself thinking 'I wonder what this would be like with a full Hollywood budget'... This was around the point that Tara Reid was hanging out of said plane, and attempted to gun down a shark flying though the air with a small handgun, before having her hand bitten off, and exclaiming that the shark knew who she was, and was purposefully targeting her. That's pretty much what were dealing with here.
The special effects are offensively awful. The 'money-shot' of the main character sawing a shark in half with a chainsaw whilst stood on top of a car is the only relatively decent use if CGI in the whole movie, and it's clear that most of the effects budget was spent on it. Pretty sure all the rest of effects are just cut and pasted from the first one.
There's also a weird rain filter applied to a lot of the film, to give the effect of stormy weather... But the characters are bone dry for the whole thing....
For what it's worth, Sharknado 2 partially achieves it's desire to be really really silly, which is a slight improvement on the tediousness of the first one - still rubbish though.
The first Sharknado thought that it was so bad it was good, when in reality l, it is 100% shit. Sharknado 2 on the other hand, is only 99% shit. During the opening scene set on a plane, I found myself thinking 'I wonder what this would be like with a full Hollywood budget'... This was around the point that Tara Reid was hanging out of said plane, and attempted to gun down a shark flying though the air with a small handgun, before having her hand bitten off, and exclaiming that the shark knew who she was, and was purposefully targeting her. That's pretty much what were dealing with here.
The special effects are offensively awful. The 'money-shot' of the main character sawing a shark in half with a chainsaw whilst stood on top of a car is the only relatively decent use if CGI in the whole movie, and it's clear that most of the effects budget was spent on it. Pretty sure all the rest of effects are just cut and pasted from the first one.
There's also a weird rain filter applied to a lot of the film, to give the effect of stormy weather... But the characters are bone dry for the whole thing....
For what it's worth, Sharknado 2 partially achieves it's desire to be really really silly, which is a slight improvement on the tediousness of the first one - still rubbish though.
HT
Hugo: The Shooting Script
Book
Director Martin Scorsese, the legendary storyteller, decided to make his first-ever 3D film based on...
George Lucas
Book
George Lucas by Brian Jay Jones is the first comprehensive telling of the story of the iconic...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Spree (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2021
I honestly can't figure out if I thought this was good or not...
Starting with the positives then. I thought the premise was decent. An amateur streamer who has spent the best part of a decade failing to gain numbers via his social media accounts, embarks on a killing spree during his day job as a taxi driver, whilst simultaneously live streaming the whole thing. Stranger Things' Joe Keery plays the killer in question, and does a pretty decent job at portraying an unhinged, isolated young adult who is just obsessed with fame.
I also enjoyed both Sasheer Zamata and David Arquette in supporting roles.
It's a very styalised movie - the whole runtime is shown through streaming mediums, essentially being a semi found footage horror, and it works for the most part.
However, I've never been the biggest fan of this particular sub genre, and I found myself losing interest now and again. It's trying very hard to be modern and relevant, which it sort of is, but I'm not sure how far it will go in resonating with a younger generation. A lot of the script is cringey in it attempts to throw current slang terms in at every given moment. I've even heard Spree described as "Taxi Driver for the Instagram generation", a bold claim that falls way short in reality, even if that was Eugene Kotlyarenko's intention.
All in all, Spree manages to remain entertaining enough to warrant sitting through it, and that's mainly thanks to Joe Keery's weirdly uncomfortable performance. Maybe knock back a beer or two at the same time for good measure.
Starting with the positives then. I thought the premise was decent. An amateur streamer who has spent the best part of a decade failing to gain numbers via his social media accounts, embarks on a killing spree during his day job as a taxi driver, whilst simultaneously live streaming the whole thing. Stranger Things' Joe Keery plays the killer in question, and does a pretty decent job at portraying an unhinged, isolated young adult who is just obsessed with fame.
I also enjoyed both Sasheer Zamata and David Arquette in supporting roles.
It's a very styalised movie - the whole runtime is shown through streaming mediums, essentially being a semi found footage horror, and it works for the most part.
However, I've never been the biggest fan of this particular sub genre, and I found myself losing interest now and again. It's trying very hard to be modern and relevant, which it sort of is, but I'm not sure how far it will go in resonating with a younger generation. A lot of the script is cringey in it attempts to throw current slang terms in at every given moment. I've even heard Spree described as "Taxi Driver for the Instagram generation", a bold claim that falls way short in reality, even if that was Eugene Kotlyarenko's intention.
All in all, Spree manages to remain entertaining enough to warrant sitting through it, and that's mainly thanks to Joe Keery's weirdly uncomfortable performance. Maybe knock back a beer or two at the same time for good measure.