Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Donnie Darko (2001) in Movies
Mar 27, 2018
Wasn't Feeling it
High school student Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) is beset with visions of a six-foot bunny and premonitions of the world ending in less than a month.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
Characters: 9
One of the things Donnie Darko excelled at for me. The film relies on its quirkiness which is best exhibited in its depth of characters. Darko is a troubled kid who is completely unpredictable and doesn't care much who he offends. I wasn't his biggest fan, but there were a number of moments where he caught me off guard in a good way. The Fear/Love classroom scene was one of my particular favorites.
His sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) stands out as the character I liked the most. She thinks that Donnie is indeed strange fruit and is never afraid to call him on his crap. At the same time, she is also protective of him with a family-first mentality. You can tell she's got it all figured out and now she's trying to help the others around her do the same. It's interesting watching the two characters in contrast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 0
Seriously, what was the conflict here? What was the, "Why should I care?" portion of the film? If I'm shooting holes in the movie, this is definitely bullet #1. I guess one could argue that Donnie's conflict is within himself and what ultimately is happening to him. I'm sorry, but unless Donnie is dealing with a vampire change or a zombie turn, I don't think internal conflict is enough. Sure weird things are happening throughout the film, but you get the feeling that it's all much ado about nothing.
Genre: 3
Memorability: 1
Pace: 6
There seems to be quite a few moving parts throughout the course of the film, most of which I didn't really care much to follow. There wasn't enough consistent intrigue to keep the mystery afloat. Very slow. I need a coffee just thinking about it. Or perhaps a nice tea...
Plot: 3
Original? Sure, I'll absolutely give it a handful of points for looking at cinema in a unique way. All in all, though, the film feels like I'm wading through a swamp to get to work. I know I'm going the right way or rather I know cutting through this swamp will get me to where I need to be...But why the hell am I in this swamp? What am I trying to prove? I guess I'm saying I just didn't quite get it. I'm also willing to admit that maybe it's just me.
Resolution: 0
Overall: 42
Critics loved it. So did audiences. I thought the characters were solid and the film succeeds with a number of memorable shots, but falls short with shoddy pacing that left me more confused than when I started. Just one man's opinion.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
Characters: 9
One of the things Donnie Darko excelled at for me. The film relies on its quirkiness which is best exhibited in its depth of characters. Darko is a troubled kid who is completely unpredictable and doesn't care much who he offends. I wasn't his biggest fan, but there were a number of moments where he caught me off guard in a good way. The Fear/Love classroom scene was one of my particular favorites.
His sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) stands out as the character I liked the most. She thinks that Donnie is indeed strange fruit and is never afraid to call him on his crap. At the same time, she is also protective of him with a family-first mentality. You can tell she's got it all figured out and now she's trying to help the others around her do the same. It's interesting watching the two characters in contrast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 0
Seriously, what was the conflict here? What was the, "Why should I care?" portion of the film? If I'm shooting holes in the movie, this is definitely bullet #1. I guess one could argue that Donnie's conflict is within himself and what ultimately is happening to him. I'm sorry, but unless Donnie is dealing with a vampire change or a zombie turn, I don't think internal conflict is enough. Sure weird things are happening throughout the film, but you get the feeling that it's all much ado about nothing.
Genre: 3
Memorability: 1
Pace: 6
There seems to be quite a few moving parts throughout the course of the film, most of which I didn't really care much to follow. There wasn't enough consistent intrigue to keep the mystery afloat. Very slow. I need a coffee just thinking about it. Or perhaps a nice tea...
Plot: 3
Original? Sure, I'll absolutely give it a handful of points for looking at cinema in a unique way. All in all, though, the film feels like I'm wading through a swamp to get to work. I know I'm going the right way or rather I know cutting through this swamp will get me to where I need to be...But why the hell am I in this swamp? What am I trying to prove? I guess I'm saying I just didn't quite get it. I'm also willing to admit that maybe it's just me.
Resolution: 0
Overall: 42
Critics loved it. So did audiences. I thought the characters were solid and the film succeeds with a number of memorable shots, but falls short with shoddy pacing that left me more confused than when I started. Just one man's opinion.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Spiral (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mason isn't exactly your everyday joe. He's an artist. A sketcher and a painter, but he's also incredibly quiet and tends to keep to himself. He has an office job where he tries to sell car insurance, but he doesn't exactly fit in with others. His only friend(if that's what you want to call him) is Berkeley, the boss. Berkeley comes off like he cares about Mason, but his compassion is overshadowed by the fact that he's a prick. Things start looking up for Mason as he meets Amber. After seeing Mason's sketches and getting to know him a little better, she decides she wants him to paint her. Mason's...odd side starts to reveal itself as he won't let Amber see his sketches. "There are rules," he says, "You can't see it until it's done." As Amber gets closer to Mason, what can he be hiding? Why is he such an "enigma," as Amber put it? Why does he keep having disturbing dreams about another woman?
Where do I start? I actually really liked this. I was expecting to as Adam Green and Joel David Moore were both involved with Hatchet, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. While Hatchet is half comedy and half gorefest, Spiral is more of a dramatic thriller that builds towards the ending. Spiral, while being low budget, is shot in superb fashion. The way its shot is actually its charm. I love the way the camera gets shaky during the scenes where Mason seems like he's going to lose it or when he finally does. Joel David Moore is also in top form here. His talent truly shines in this role. Everything from his body language to the way he chomps his teeth when he gets nervous, he sucks you in. You wind up feeling sorry for Mason even though you know he's twisted in some way. Witnessing his character unveil how dark really is is just amazing. The other actor I was really impressed with was Zachary Levi. I wound up becoming a fan of his with Chuck, but I've never seen him like this. He's basically a prick with a heart(even though that side of him is really only shown to Mason). While his role is a little small, he's still able to steal a few scenes...especially in the last half of the film. The other element that really adds to the film is the jazz music used. It fits perfectly with Mason's personality. Jazz music accentuates Mason's insanity that nothing else could. I really have nothing bad to say about the film.
This may surprise a few people, but Spiral is actually quite enjoyable. The acting is top notch and it's written incredibly well. For a movie that went straight to DVD, it's quite surprising how good it actually is. Even if you hated Hatchet, you should give Spiral a chance as it's a completely different kind of film.
Where do I start? I actually really liked this. I was expecting to as Adam Green and Joel David Moore were both involved with Hatchet, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. While Hatchet is half comedy and half gorefest, Spiral is more of a dramatic thriller that builds towards the ending. Spiral, while being low budget, is shot in superb fashion. The way its shot is actually its charm. I love the way the camera gets shaky during the scenes where Mason seems like he's going to lose it or when he finally does. Joel David Moore is also in top form here. His talent truly shines in this role. Everything from his body language to the way he chomps his teeth when he gets nervous, he sucks you in. You wind up feeling sorry for Mason even though you know he's twisted in some way. Witnessing his character unveil how dark really is is just amazing. The other actor I was really impressed with was Zachary Levi. I wound up becoming a fan of his with Chuck, but I've never seen him like this. He's basically a prick with a heart(even though that side of him is really only shown to Mason). While his role is a little small, he's still able to steal a few scenes...especially in the last half of the film. The other element that really adds to the film is the jazz music used. It fits perfectly with Mason's personality. Jazz music accentuates Mason's insanity that nothing else could. I really have nothing bad to say about the film.
This may surprise a few people, but Spiral is actually quite enjoyable. The acting is top notch and it's written incredibly well. For a movie that went straight to DVD, it's quite surprising how good it actually is. Even if you hated Hatchet, you should give Spiral a chance as it's a completely different kind of film.
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated Love and Monsters (2021) in Movies
Apr 17, 2021
Good take on an apocalypse. But really?
Contains spoilers, click to show
So the world's going to end with a huge comet but they save themselves with a rocket. But the rocket is made of some weird crap that lands back on earth and mutates all the bugs and lizards. Don't ask me why only those things and not actual animals because I don't know.
In a year, 95% of the worlds population has been wiped out. Those that are left have spent 7 years in bunkers, safe houses and other hidey holes. Joel is one of them. He was 16 when the world ended and now he wants to go find his ex girlfriend who lives in a different (what they call) colony. He's lonely because all his colony family have shacked up and he's the odd one out. He's also totally useless. He freezes up at the sight of the giant mutant bugs. But yes, he leaves to take a 7 day journey across mutant filled terrain, thats overgrown over 7 years.
Far fetched right? But he does it. With the help of a dog (yeah, a dog survived 7 years alone) an old man and his adopted daughter who know everything there is to know about the mutants, and at some weird point, a broken AI who just happens to have a few moments spare to comfort him. Also, sky jellies??? Mutations can't make sea animals fly...
So he gets there eventually, and finds her looking after old people. She's about to pack up and boars a yacht for a creepy youngish captain. And after some deliberation, Joel realises he's not who he says he is and he's actually a food stealer which, haha, ironically Joel kept being accused of being just that!! The captain sets this giant crab onto the biddies and sets sail to loot some other colony. But Joel looks right into that creepy crabs slightly human looking eyes and realises, he just wants to be free like any other self respecting mutant crab. So of course he frees him.
And then because his ex is a bitch who totally forgot about him and didn't really want him to go there, he goes back to his old colony to help them get to the mountain where there is a huge safe haven supposedly.
No romantic ending. He mysteriously survived 14 days on the surface, only coming close to being eaten like 5 times. And we don't even see if they make it to the mountain. Instead we hear his speech over the radio signals, encouraging people who've been safe for 7 years to risk their lives outside trying to make it to the mountains. Because if he can, anyone can.... gross.
So in summary, if they'd skipped the romance part, and maybe made it about a guy finding his parents or something, great movie. And someone give the damn dog his human back!
In a year, 95% of the worlds population has been wiped out. Those that are left have spent 7 years in bunkers, safe houses and other hidey holes. Joel is one of them. He was 16 when the world ended and now he wants to go find his ex girlfriend who lives in a different (what they call) colony. He's lonely because all his colony family have shacked up and he's the odd one out. He's also totally useless. He freezes up at the sight of the giant mutant bugs. But yes, he leaves to take a 7 day journey across mutant filled terrain, thats overgrown over 7 years.
Far fetched right? But he does it. With the help of a dog (yeah, a dog survived 7 years alone) an old man and his adopted daughter who know everything there is to know about the mutants, and at some weird point, a broken AI who just happens to have a few moments spare to comfort him. Also, sky jellies??? Mutations can't make sea animals fly...
So he gets there eventually, and finds her looking after old people. She's about to pack up and boars a yacht for a creepy youngish captain. And after some deliberation, Joel realises he's not who he says he is and he's actually a food stealer which, haha, ironically Joel kept being accused of being just that!! The captain sets this giant crab onto the biddies and sets sail to loot some other colony. But Joel looks right into that creepy crabs slightly human looking eyes and realises, he just wants to be free like any other self respecting mutant crab. So of course he frees him.
And then because his ex is a bitch who totally forgot about him and didn't really want him to go there, he goes back to his old colony to help them get to the mountain where there is a huge safe haven supposedly.
No romantic ending. He mysteriously survived 14 days on the surface, only coming close to being eaten like 5 times. And we don't even see if they make it to the mountain. Instead we hear his speech over the radio signals, encouraging people who've been safe for 7 years to risk their lives outside trying to make it to the mountains. Because if he can, anyone can.... gross.
So in summary, if they'd skipped the romance part, and maybe made it about a guy finding his parents or something, great movie. And someone give the damn dog his human back!
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I first read Dracula as part of a film and fiction course at University: read the book; watch the film. It is, of course, the most famous of all vampire stories.
Unlike the movie version, the story is told from the point of view of the various secondary characters (who are all writing in their diaries or memoirs): Dracula, himself, is never at the forefront. Rather, he is an ominous shadowy presence in the background throughout. This is actually quite effective: by disassociating the reader from the villain, Stoker manages to both convey the deadly mysteriousness of the Count, and side-steps the danger of the reader sympathizing too much with Dracula, while that character is also able to be abroad during the day-time; just not with the powers he has at night.
Finally, and unlike the film version which bears the same name, in the book Dracula is not given the same back-story: Mina, for instance, is never described as being his long-lost love! In this sense, the film is much more of a Gothic love-story than the original source material!
Unlike the movie version, the story is told from the point of view of the various secondary characters (who are all writing in their diaries or memoirs): Dracula, himself, is never at the forefront. Rather, he is an ominous shadowy presence in the background throughout. This is actually quite effective: by disassociating the reader from the villain, Stoker manages to both convey the deadly mysteriousness of the Count, and side-steps the danger of the reader sympathizing too much with Dracula, while that character is also able to be abroad during the day-time; just not with the powers he has at night.
Finally, and unlike the film version which bears the same name, in the book Dracula is not given the same back-story: Mina, for instance, is never described as being his long-lost love! In this sense, the film is much more of a Gothic love-story than the original source material!
The Name Above The Title
Book
Although Frank Capra (1897-1991) is best known as the director of It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds...
Everything Sucks - Season 1
7.5
Rate It
TV Season
It's the 1990s in Boring, Ore., and groups of outcasts in Boring High School's AV and drama clubs...
Comedy drama everything sucks Netflix 90s
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.