Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fatman (2020) in Movies
Dec 21, 2020
I'll level with you on this one, I had no idea what I was in for, but Mel Gibson as a crazed looking Santa had me sold, so I went ahead a brought this one on DVD.
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Be Frank With Me in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Alice has worked a string of dead-end jobs until she winds up as an assistant for a literary agent, Mr. Vargas. He is impressed with her work at a tech store (think Apple Genius Bar) and takes her under his wing. Eventually Mr. Vargas dispatches Alice to assist with one of his most famous, but reclusive, clients: M.M. "Mimi" Banning. Mimi wrote a famous bestseller book as a young woman and then basically disappeared off the grid. She's recently lost all her money in a Ponzi scheme, however, and she needs an assistant to help with delivery of a new manuscript. Enter Alice. However, when Alice arrives in California, she finds herself mainly acting as caretaker to Mimi's nine-year-old son, Frank: a quirky and unique boy who changes Alice's life.
There's really no way to describe this book. It was an excellent way to round out 2015 - it's a lovely and touching novel. While in theory it describes a bit of time in Alice's life, with most of the story coming from her point of view, the true hero of this story is Frank - amazing, wonderful, funny Frank. Frank would probably be deemed autistic, or at least somewhere on the spectrum, in our society, as he clearly has issues with being touched, interacting with his peers, and many other things. But he's also this amazing, unique, and smart boy - he dresses like a movie star from the '30s, has an endless supply of facts in his brain about everything (but doesn't comprehend sarcasm or humor), loves old films, and has a fierce and deep devotion for his mother -- no matter what she does.
As Alice gets to know Frank, Mimi, and the small cast of characters around them - mainly, Xander, Frank's piano teacher, who flits in and out of his life - she is as drawn to the boy as the rest of us. But can she save Frank (and Mimi) from the harshness of the outside world and their past? It's an interesting thought and one that doesn't lend itself to a typical beginning/middle/end plot. In some ways, not a lot happens in this book (though in some ways, a lot does), but its story is propelled by Johnson's excellent character development and descriptions. Frank, Alice, Mimi, and Xander really come to life in her hands. It's a funny book, a sad book, but a beautiful book. Certainly a worthwhile read. You'll find yourself thinking about these characters long after you turn the last page.
(Note: I received an advance copy of this novel from Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review.)
There's really no way to describe this book. It was an excellent way to round out 2015 - it's a lovely and touching novel. While in theory it describes a bit of time in Alice's life, with most of the story coming from her point of view, the true hero of this story is Frank - amazing, wonderful, funny Frank. Frank would probably be deemed autistic, or at least somewhere on the spectrum, in our society, as he clearly has issues with being touched, interacting with his peers, and many other things. But he's also this amazing, unique, and smart boy - he dresses like a movie star from the '30s, has an endless supply of facts in his brain about everything (but doesn't comprehend sarcasm or humor), loves old films, and has a fierce and deep devotion for his mother -- no matter what she does.
As Alice gets to know Frank, Mimi, and the small cast of characters around them - mainly, Xander, Frank's piano teacher, who flits in and out of his life - she is as drawn to the boy as the rest of us. But can she save Frank (and Mimi) from the harshness of the outside world and their past? It's an interesting thought and one that doesn't lend itself to a typical beginning/middle/end plot. In some ways, not a lot happens in this book (though in some ways, a lot does), but its story is propelled by Johnson's excellent character development and descriptions. Frank, Alice, Mimi, and Xander really come to life in her hands. It's a funny book, a sad book, but a beautiful book. Certainly a worthwhile read. You'll find yourself thinking about these characters long after you turn the last page.
(Note: I received an advance copy of this novel from Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review.)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Loki in TV
Sep 6, 2021
Great Cast & Acting (2 more)
Superb CGI & Special Effects
Excellent Plot and Story
Filled With Glorious Purpose, and Lived Up To The Hype
During the events of Marvel's Endgame, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) escaped using the Tesseract when the Avengers went back in time. Many fans wondered what happened to this "alternate" Loki, as the Loki in the present timeline met his demise at the hands of Thanos. This "Loki" is captured by the TVA (Time Variance Authority), a mysterious bureaucratic organization that monitors the timeline and exists outside of time and space itself. He's put on trial before Judge Renslayer (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) where he is found guilty for his crimes against the "sacred timeline" and sentenced to be "pruned". However, Agent Mobius (Owen Wilson) enters the picture and Loki is given a choice to help fix the timeline and stop a great threat or face being erased from existence for being a "time variant". He agrees to help Mobius hunt down another Loki variant who has killed several TVA agents and has become a serious problem for the TVA.
So usually going into a movie or show with high expectations is a guarantee to be disappointed but I'm so glad this show wasn't a disappointment. First off, I was super excited for this highly anticipated series since Marvel was finally going to answer the question of "What happened to the "other" Loki?". The third Disney Plus series to be released after Wandavision, and The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, Loki brings us more of Tom Hiddleston and the fan favorite character Loki. Loki was a really great show that I enjoyed every episode of. There was so much that it did right. It had great actors like Owen Wilson and Gugu Mbatha-Raw and acting with great performances by Tom Hiddleston and Sophia Di Martino who had really good chemistry. It had awesome special effects and CGI throughout the whole show from the incredible views of the TVA and Lamentis-1, to the animated character Miss Minutes, to the amazing intro of the final episode. It also had an excellent plot and story that kept the show going at a good pace, with a nice mystery that kept you intrigued and hooked with a twist at the end of every episode. It also had movie quality cinematography you expect from a big budget blockbuster and definitely felt like this could have just as easily been on the big screen in theaters as it was on Disney plus. The first episode starts off with Loki finding out who and what the TVA are and what they want with him. Which is to help them hunt down a Loki variant. It feels like there was a lot of attention to the plot and detail of the storytelling, although a lot of it was building up what was to come, I think it did a superb job of setting the vibe and feel of the series and the storyline from the first episode on. I really liked Owen Wilson and his character agent Mobius, he came off as serious but funny in a aloof kind of way. Kind of reminded me of a teacher who is nice until you start giving them trouble and they have think of some way to deal with you. There was a really good mix of humor and emotion and action as well, although some episodes were more action heavy than others. The music and score were very fitting of the MCU but with a clear influence of Loki's personality in it as well as the mystery and grandness of the plot and story. So without giving away any spoilers in this section I give this series a 8/10 and my "Must See Seal of Approval". I know this review is super late to the party but if you're late too and haven't seen this show you need to definitely check it out.
So usually going into a movie or show with high expectations is a guarantee to be disappointed but I'm so glad this show wasn't a disappointment. First off, I was super excited for this highly anticipated series since Marvel was finally going to answer the question of "What happened to the "other" Loki?". The third Disney Plus series to be released after Wandavision, and The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, Loki brings us more of Tom Hiddleston and the fan favorite character Loki. Loki was a really great show that I enjoyed every episode of. There was so much that it did right. It had great actors like Owen Wilson and Gugu Mbatha-Raw and acting with great performances by Tom Hiddleston and Sophia Di Martino who had really good chemistry. It had awesome special effects and CGI throughout the whole show from the incredible views of the TVA and Lamentis-1, to the animated character Miss Minutes, to the amazing intro of the final episode. It also had an excellent plot and story that kept the show going at a good pace, with a nice mystery that kept you intrigued and hooked with a twist at the end of every episode. It also had movie quality cinematography you expect from a big budget blockbuster and definitely felt like this could have just as easily been on the big screen in theaters as it was on Disney plus. The first episode starts off with Loki finding out who and what the TVA are and what they want with him. Which is to help them hunt down a Loki variant. It feels like there was a lot of attention to the plot and detail of the storytelling, although a lot of it was building up what was to come, I think it did a superb job of setting the vibe and feel of the series and the storyline from the first episode on. I really liked Owen Wilson and his character agent Mobius, he came off as serious but funny in a aloof kind of way. Kind of reminded me of a teacher who is nice until you start giving them trouble and they have think of some way to deal with you. There was a really good mix of humor and emotion and action as well, although some episodes were more action heavy than others. The music and score were very fitting of the MCU but with a clear influence of Loki's personality in it as well as the mystery and grandness of the plot and story. So without giving away any spoilers in this section I give this series a 8/10 and my "Must See Seal of Approval". I know this review is super late to the party but if you're late too and haven't seen this show you need to definitely check it out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Love at First Like in Books
Mar 19, 2020
First of all, please congratulate me for reading a book on my Netgalley backlist! Go me! Second, congratulate me again for reading a book based on a premise I despise: sitting on a throne of lies! :)
When Eliza discovers via Instagram that her last serious ex-boyfriend, Holden is engaged, she flips out. Despite the fact that she runs a successful business, Brooklyn Jewelers, with her sister, Sophie, Eliza feels as if she's lost the breakup--and life--when Holden gets engaged first. After all, she's still single. To console herself, she takes out some of the jewelry store pieces and snaps some insta-worthy shots of them on her left (ring) finger. This process is accompanied with a little alcohol to soothe the loss. Everything seems fine until she wakes up in the morning and realizes she's posted a shot to the store's page--and it's basically gone viral. From there, Eliza makes the perfectly rational (??!!) decision to pretend she's engaged and line up a free wedding and honeymoon to drum up business for Brooklyn Jewelers. All she needs now is a groom.
"My wedding is exactly six months from tomorrow. All I have to do now is find the groom."
I have no idea why I picked this book, I'm guessing it was a Netgalley widget, because I really really hate books based on lies like this. It truly makes me nervous and on edge. I almost didn't keep reading, but I decided to give it a shot. And I will grudgingly admit that Eliza grew on me, okay? If you aren't as bothered by me by the "throne of lies" concept, you might enjoy this book. And if you are into Instagram and jewelry, you could even love it.
Some pluses... Eliza has a lesbian sister. Sure, it's token lesbian representation, but at least it's there. Eliza pines for a man, but she's also a strong businesswoman and her business is very important to her (so much that she'd go along with this harebrained scheme to keep it). She and her sister are running a fairly successful storefront in New York. They admit part of that is because they received an inheritance, but Eliza also puts a lot of work into it. That's cool.
Some negatives... a lot of the dilemmas and plot points come across as very flat and one dimensional. Oh no, suddenly the rent is being raised, heightening the stakes in Eliza's fake wedding scheme?! Her sister's health insurance no longer covers IVF, so she needs more money to have a baby with her wife? You don't say, etc. At times, the plot feels like a trainwreck, where you know something horrible is going to happen, but you just can't look away. Eliza is determined that she's getting married--no matter the cost to anyone. The book stressed me out a lot. (Just tell people the truth!)
Still, much like a Hallmark movie, I found myself invested. I knew how it would probably all wind up, but I was weirdly captivated by it all. The Instagram heavy scenes, Eliza's dramatics, the looming wedding date. Somehow it worked in the end. It was crazy and ridiculous, but oh well. 3 stars.
When Eliza discovers via Instagram that her last serious ex-boyfriend, Holden is engaged, she flips out. Despite the fact that she runs a successful business, Brooklyn Jewelers, with her sister, Sophie, Eliza feels as if she's lost the breakup--and life--when Holden gets engaged first. After all, she's still single. To console herself, she takes out some of the jewelry store pieces and snaps some insta-worthy shots of them on her left (ring) finger. This process is accompanied with a little alcohol to soothe the loss. Everything seems fine until she wakes up in the morning and realizes she's posted a shot to the store's page--and it's basically gone viral. From there, Eliza makes the perfectly rational (??!!) decision to pretend she's engaged and line up a free wedding and honeymoon to drum up business for Brooklyn Jewelers. All she needs now is a groom.
"My wedding is exactly six months from tomorrow. All I have to do now is find the groom."
I have no idea why I picked this book, I'm guessing it was a Netgalley widget, because I really really hate books based on lies like this. It truly makes me nervous and on edge. I almost didn't keep reading, but I decided to give it a shot. And I will grudgingly admit that Eliza grew on me, okay? If you aren't as bothered by me by the "throne of lies" concept, you might enjoy this book. And if you are into Instagram and jewelry, you could even love it.
Some pluses... Eliza has a lesbian sister. Sure, it's token lesbian representation, but at least it's there. Eliza pines for a man, but she's also a strong businesswoman and her business is very important to her (so much that she'd go along with this harebrained scheme to keep it). She and her sister are running a fairly successful storefront in New York. They admit part of that is because they received an inheritance, but Eliza also puts a lot of work into it. That's cool.
Some negatives... a lot of the dilemmas and plot points come across as very flat and one dimensional. Oh no, suddenly the rent is being raised, heightening the stakes in Eliza's fake wedding scheme?! Her sister's health insurance no longer covers IVF, so she needs more money to have a baby with her wife? You don't say, etc. At times, the plot feels like a trainwreck, where you know something horrible is going to happen, but you just can't look away. Eliza is determined that she's getting married--no matter the cost to anyone. The book stressed me out a lot. (Just tell people the truth!)
Still, much like a Hallmark movie, I found myself invested. I knew how it would probably all wind up, but I was weirdly captivated by it all. The Instagram heavy scenes, Eliza's dramatics, the looming wedding date. Somehow it worked in the end. It was crazy and ridiculous, but oh well. 3 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
This is the Spider-Man movie that we deserved.
It’s hard to believe that the movie I would end up saying that about would be an animated one. Nevertheless, I left the theater this time feeling a sense of warm satisfaction for the first time since Sony originally graced us with Tobey Maguire.
Spider-Ma n: Into the Spider-Verse is the most poignant statement that Sony could make about their recommitment to all things webslinger. The star-studded cast for this film includes Academy Award winners like Nicolas Cage and Mahershala Ali as well as the likes of Lily Tomlin, Chris Pine, and John Mulaney. But those aren’t even the main characters. Along with the stellar writing, an unbelievably well curated soundtrack and art direction that can only be described as sublime, Into the Spider-verse was exactly what we all needed right now.
This entry into the world of Spider-man actually brings us up to date with the comics by introducing us to Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), the black teenager from Brooklyn who has taken up the mantle of Spider-man following the death of Peter Parker (well, one of them). Witnessing Parker’s demise at the hands of The Kingpin, Morales promises to help destroy the weapon that killed him. Little does he realize that the weapon has opened a hole in the multiverse and multiple other spider men, women (and things) have been drawn through the rift into his universe. They all have to work together to get back to their own universes and to prevent the destruction of reality itself.
The soundtrack for this movie really brings Spider-man into modern times. Artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Eminem and Run the Jewels speak to the Brooklyn upbringing of Morales as the new webslinger. At the same time, it also serves up artists like Marshmello, Pendulum and Prodigy who demonstrate how action can be fueled through their EDM stylings. The music here is the most perfect complement to each part of the action and drama alike. Just as you will see multiple different Spider-men, you’ll be taken through a wide spectrum of musical stylings to match each hero.
The animation style displayed here really can’t be appropriately categorized. Part graffiti, part moving comic book and part CGI, the film brings together numerous different styles and effects such as cell-shading, anime breaks and word bubble subtitles to create something truly unique. The medium itself is perfect because we can finally see everything that a live-action film couldn’t execute. But unlike other animated superhero movies, this feature brings the artistic nature of illustrations to new levels. The mix of styles is unlike any cartoon you’ve ever seen (or are likely to see again). Beauty and realism combine to actually take you into a comic book instead of simply translating one for the screen.
The writing for Into the Spider-verse achieves something that few producers have managed to do in the animation field: it’s equally appealing to both children AND adults. These days it’s rare to see an animated superhero film being made for the big screen instead of going straight to television. As a result, Into the Spider-verse offers up plenty of quick witted and intelligent jokes for adults without crossing the lines of propriety. In addition to the quality humor, the story includes a number of emotional moments that all manage to evoke real feelings instead of coming off as just pandering. So, if you’re planning to take your children to this movie, you’ll certainly both enjoy it.
All-in-all, Into the Spider-Verse brings together all of the best elements in film-making and executes them to perfection. Writing, drawing, music all come together to create an experience that you have to see to believe. The only disappointing part here is that we had to wait 16 years for a Spider-Man movie this well done.
It’s hard to believe that the movie I would end up saying that about would be an animated one. Nevertheless, I left the theater this time feeling a sense of warm satisfaction for the first time since Sony originally graced us with Tobey Maguire.
Spider-Ma n: Into the Spider-Verse is the most poignant statement that Sony could make about their recommitment to all things webslinger. The star-studded cast for this film includes Academy Award winners like Nicolas Cage and Mahershala Ali as well as the likes of Lily Tomlin, Chris Pine, and John Mulaney. But those aren’t even the main characters. Along with the stellar writing, an unbelievably well curated soundtrack and art direction that can only be described as sublime, Into the Spider-verse was exactly what we all needed right now.
This entry into the world of Spider-man actually brings us up to date with the comics by introducing us to Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), the black teenager from Brooklyn who has taken up the mantle of Spider-man following the death of Peter Parker (well, one of them). Witnessing Parker’s demise at the hands of The Kingpin, Morales promises to help destroy the weapon that killed him. Little does he realize that the weapon has opened a hole in the multiverse and multiple other spider men, women (and things) have been drawn through the rift into his universe. They all have to work together to get back to their own universes and to prevent the destruction of reality itself.
The soundtrack for this movie really brings Spider-man into modern times. Artists such as Kendrick Lamar, Eminem and Run the Jewels speak to the Brooklyn upbringing of Morales as the new webslinger. At the same time, it also serves up artists like Marshmello, Pendulum and Prodigy who demonstrate how action can be fueled through their EDM stylings. The music here is the most perfect complement to each part of the action and drama alike. Just as you will see multiple different Spider-men, you’ll be taken through a wide spectrum of musical stylings to match each hero.
The animation style displayed here really can’t be appropriately categorized. Part graffiti, part moving comic book and part CGI, the film brings together numerous different styles and effects such as cell-shading, anime breaks and word bubble subtitles to create something truly unique. The medium itself is perfect because we can finally see everything that a live-action film couldn’t execute. But unlike other animated superhero movies, this feature brings the artistic nature of illustrations to new levels. The mix of styles is unlike any cartoon you’ve ever seen (or are likely to see again). Beauty and realism combine to actually take you into a comic book instead of simply translating one for the screen.
The writing for Into the Spider-verse achieves something that few producers have managed to do in the animation field: it’s equally appealing to both children AND adults. These days it’s rare to see an animated superhero film being made for the big screen instead of going straight to television. As a result, Into the Spider-verse offers up plenty of quick witted and intelligent jokes for adults without crossing the lines of propriety. In addition to the quality humor, the story includes a number of emotional moments that all manage to evoke real feelings instead of coming off as just pandering. So, if you’re planning to take your children to this movie, you’ll certainly both enjoy it.
All-in-all, Into the Spider-Verse brings together all of the best elements in film-making and executes them to perfection. Writing, drawing, music all come together to create an experience that you have to see to believe. The only disappointing part here is that we had to wait 16 years for a Spider-Man movie this well done.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Brilliant
Director Matthew Vaughn has brought some visually striking films to the big screen in his fairly short career, from the brilliant Layer Cake, to the movie which many credit as saving the X-Men franchise, First Class, he certainly knows his way around a camera.
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tomorrow (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The film had me at "brief strong sex" on the title card.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.