Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Hotel Transylvania 4 (2021) in Movies
Jan 22, 2022
The transformation sequences. (1 more)
The 2D animated end credits
Genndy Tartakovsky not directing (2 more)
Humor exchanged for annoying behavior
Feels almost like a soft reboot for a final film.
A Monstrous Monstrosity
Hotel Transylvania: Tranformania is the final film in the Hotel Transylvania franchise. With Genndy Tartakavsky no longer directing (he co-writes and executive produces this time around) and Adam Sandler and Kevin James not returning (Brian Hull and Brad Abrell now voice Dracula and Frankenstein), Transformania takes an awkward step back from the previous three films.
Despite some character designs (Bela in the second film, the Kraken in the third) and some tremendous end credit animations that are done in a very recognizable Tartakavsky style (think Dexter’s Lab or Powerpuff Girls), the films are mediocre at best and yet became a billion dollar franchise.
Hull and Abrell do a decent job matching their voices to the Drac and Frank characters. You may not have noticed the characters were voiced by someone else if you hadn’t known beforehand. However, the animation looks noticeably different. Maybe new directors Jennifer Kluska and Derek Drymon are to credit for that. Kluska was a storyboard artist on Hotel Transylvania 2 and 3 while Drymon was an executive producer of Adventure Time and was a storyboard artist on The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.
The film was also moved around several times thanks to COVID and the pandemic. Sony Pictures Releasing eventually nixed the film’s theatrical run and sold distribution rights to Amazon Studios. This is the only Hotel Transylvania film to be released directly to a streaming platform.
Considering that this is the fourth film, Transformania basically rewrites several characters to an extent that it ignores key details from other films. Johnny is now akin to Homer Simpson since he is dumber than he has ever been here. He had a stoner or frat boy with a heart of gold kind of vibe about him originally. He was very mellow by nature, but had seen a good chunk of the world and knew more than his behavior let on. He had stories even though he was young and he was likeable. Transformania turns him into a dumb and unfunny dork that is borderline offensive due to how annoying he is.
Dracula has lost whatever made him somewhat charming in the previous three films, as well. In Transformania, he’s looking to settle down with Ericka and retire from running the hotel. The intention is to give the hotel to Mavis and Johnny, but all of a sudden Dracula hates Johnny. The first three films are built around how close Johnny and Dracula become. Now Dracula just finds Johnny unbearable.
After establishing in the second film that Dennis is part vampire and has powers, that concept is totally erased in Transformania. Dracula hypnotizes Dennis in the beginning of the film and he remains that way for the bulk of the film without ever utilizing any sort of power or doing anything remotely relevant.
Instead of downright telling Johnny that he can’t stand him, Dracula lies and says that he can’t leave the hotel in the hands of a human; it can only be inherited by monsters. Johnny then discusses the matter with Abraham Van Helsing who uses his Monsterfication Ray to turn Johnny into a giant lizard-like monster. But the ray can also turn monsters into humans. Once Dracula discovers what Johnny has done, he attempts to turn Johnny back before Mavis finds out. The plan backfires and Dracula gets hit with the ray and is turned human. His friends Wayne, Griffin, Murray, and Frankenstein are also turned human. If a cure isn’t found, the results may be permanent.
The highlight of the film is the transformation sequences since they are noticeably inspired by the horror film genre; specifically An American Werewolf in London. The end credits sequence is also done in a similar style to the first three films, so that sequence is fairly entertaining as well.
Transformania otherwise feels like a downgrade all around and the bar wasn’t all the high to begin with. As expected, there is a dancing sequence that may or may not be something you look forward to. None of the gags come off as humorous as every character mostly seems to be aiming to be more obnoxious than the other. The “fun” lies within seeing the monster characters as humans. The most notable is Griffin who has been totally invisible until now.
Hotel Transylvania: Transformania had a lot of obstacles relating to its release and after viewing the film you can understand why. It’s a lukewarm sendoff that mostly feels like a lethargic attempt to recapture its former glory. It’s built around an entertaining concept that it doesn’t fully capitalize on. It ultimately obliterates character traits for trite gags and cliché punch lines.
Despite some character designs (Bela in the second film, the Kraken in the third) and some tremendous end credit animations that are done in a very recognizable Tartakavsky style (think Dexter’s Lab or Powerpuff Girls), the films are mediocre at best and yet became a billion dollar franchise.
Hull and Abrell do a decent job matching their voices to the Drac and Frank characters. You may not have noticed the characters were voiced by someone else if you hadn’t known beforehand. However, the animation looks noticeably different. Maybe new directors Jennifer Kluska and Derek Drymon are to credit for that. Kluska was a storyboard artist on Hotel Transylvania 2 and 3 while Drymon was an executive producer of Adventure Time and was a storyboard artist on The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.
The film was also moved around several times thanks to COVID and the pandemic. Sony Pictures Releasing eventually nixed the film’s theatrical run and sold distribution rights to Amazon Studios. This is the only Hotel Transylvania film to be released directly to a streaming platform.
Considering that this is the fourth film, Transformania basically rewrites several characters to an extent that it ignores key details from other films. Johnny is now akin to Homer Simpson since he is dumber than he has ever been here. He had a stoner or frat boy with a heart of gold kind of vibe about him originally. He was very mellow by nature, but had seen a good chunk of the world and knew more than his behavior let on. He had stories even though he was young and he was likeable. Transformania turns him into a dumb and unfunny dork that is borderline offensive due to how annoying he is.
Dracula has lost whatever made him somewhat charming in the previous three films, as well. In Transformania, he’s looking to settle down with Ericka and retire from running the hotel. The intention is to give the hotel to Mavis and Johnny, but all of a sudden Dracula hates Johnny. The first three films are built around how close Johnny and Dracula become. Now Dracula just finds Johnny unbearable.
After establishing in the second film that Dennis is part vampire and has powers, that concept is totally erased in Transformania. Dracula hypnotizes Dennis in the beginning of the film and he remains that way for the bulk of the film without ever utilizing any sort of power or doing anything remotely relevant.
Instead of downright telling Johnny that he can’t stand him, Dracula lies and says that he can’t leave the hotel in the hands of a human; it can only be inherited by monsters. Johnny then discusses the matter with Abraham Van Helsing who uses his Monsterfication Ray to turn Johnny into a giant lizard-like monster. But the ray can also turn monsters into humans. Once Dracula discovers what Johnny has done, he attempts to turn Johnny back before Mavis finds out. The plan backfires and Dracula gets hit with the ray and is turned human. His friends Wayne, Griffin, Murray, and Frankenstein are also turned human. If a cure isn’t found, the results may be permanent.
The highlight of the film is the transformation sequences since they are noticeably inspired by the horror film genre; specifically An American Werewolf in London. The end credits sequence is also done in a similar style to the first three films, so that sequence is fairly entertaining as well.
Transformania otherwise feels like a downgrade all around and the bar wasn’t all the high to begin with. As expected, there is a dancing sequence that may or may not be something you look forward to. None of the gags come off as humorous as every character mostly seems to be aiming to be more obnoxious than the other. The “fun” lies within seeing the monster characters as humans. The most notable is Griffin who has been totally invisible until now.
Hotel Transylvania: Transformania had a lot of obstacles relating to its release and after viewing the film you can understand why. It’s a lukewarm sendoff that mostly feels like a lethargic attempt to recapture its former glory. It’s built around an entertaining concept that it doesn’t fully capitalize on. It ultimately obliterates character traits for trite gags and cliché punch lines.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Aug 19, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
A dammmnnn shame
Contains spoilers, click to show
Oh boy.
I'm going to get straight to the main flaw with this one - I'm not sure how someone can really mess up Apocalypse so bad - he is a great X-Men villain. I remember watching the cartoon as a kid, being enamoured whenever Apocalypse turned up. The first mutant, practically a god, terrifying voice etc.
The Age of Apocalypse story arc is also a great comic - one where we see just how dangerous Apocalypse can be.
But instead of this classic villain, we get, well whatever the hell this is.
Oscar Isaac is give or take in other films I've seen him in, he just sort of exists to me, but I'm sure he did the best he could with what he was given.
But the character we're presented with in X-Men: Apocalypse is a mutant that isn't particularly terrifying, whose motives aren't very clear, and who speaks in a goddam normal human voice for the entire movie.
He looks, ok I guess, a little Ivan Ooze-ish at times, and there is a (very) brief moment where his voice goes all demonic and his eyes turn white, which offers a tiny glimpse of what could have been.
Elsewhere, the still awesome Michael Fassbender is relegated to a sidekick character, new cast members such as Psylocke, Angel, and Storm are there just to strike poses to edgy rock music, and Quicksilver gets a re hash of his great scene from DOFP that just doesn't quite hit the mark this time round.
The introduction of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is fine, and it's nice to see a young Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc, but they're not given too much to do. It all just feels like one big wasted opportunity.
The film would have been much better and ballsier had it ended with Apocalypse winning, and ushering a full on Age of Apocalypse scenario for a sequel, but instead, he is dispatched with not too much trouble, as the writers poorly shoehorn in a segue for Dark Phoenix (for the second time in this franchise)
It's not all bad, there are times where I felt I was watching the cartoon come to life. The opening scene in ancient Egypt was pretty fun, and I actually quite enjoyed the brief Wolverine scene - those few minutes were way more entertaining to me than the entirety of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Overall though, this one had me wanting the rights to return to Marvel Studios.
I'm going to get straight to the main flaw with this one - I'm not sure how someone can really mess up Apocalypse so bad - he is a great X-Men villain. I remember watching the cartoon as a kid, being enamoured whenever Apocalypse turned up. The first mutant, practically a god, terrifying voice etc.
The Age of Apocalypse story arc is also a great comic - one where we see just how dangerous Apocalypse can be.
But instead of this classic villain, we get, well whatever the hell this is.
Oscar Isaac is give or take in other films I've seen him in, he just sort of exists to me, but I'm sure he did the best he could with what he was given.
But the character we're presented with in X-Men: Apocalypse is a mutant that isn't particularly terrifying, whose motives aren't very clear, and who speaks in a goddam normal human voice for the entire movie.
He looks, ok I guess, a little Ivan Ooze-ish at times, and there is a (very) brief moment where his voice goes all demonic and his eyes turn white, which offers a tiny glimpse of what could have been.
Elsewhere, the still awesome Michael Fassbender is relegated to a sidekick character, new cast members such as Psylocke, Angel, and Storm are there just to strike poses to edgy rock music, and Quicksilver gets a re hash of his great scene from DOFP that just doesn't quite hit the mark this time round.
The introduction of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is fine, and it's nice to see a young Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc, but they're not given too much to do. It all just feels like one big wasted opportunity.
The film would have been much better and ballsier had it ended with Apocalypse winning, and ushering a full on Age of Apocalypse scenario for a sequel, but instead, he is dispatched with not too much trouble, as the writers poorly shoehorn in a segue for Dark Phoenix (for the second time in this franchise)
It's not all bad, there are times where I felt I was watching the cartoon come to life. The opening scene in ancient Egypt was pretty fun, and I actually quite enjoyed the brief Wolverine scene - those few minutes were way more entertaining to me than the entirety of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Overall though, this one had me wanting the rights to return to Marvel Studios.
American Showman: Samuel Roxy Rothafel and the Birth of the Entertainment Industry, 1908-1935
Book
Samuel "Roxy" Rothafel (1882-1936) built an influential and prolific career as film exhibitor, stage...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019
Almost a good movie
One of my favorite films of 2018 is A QUIET PLACE where aliens with extreme hearing can get you if you make a noise. It is a quite interesting and well made film (with a bravura performance by Emily Blunt), so when I heard there was a variant of this theme (this time you can't use your eyes), I decided to check it out and to see if Sandra Bullock could pull off the same sort of bravura performance as Blunt.
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Like A Boss (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
Before going in I knew this was either going to be fantastic or a total disaster, it wasn't likely to fall in the middle of the scale. For the most part that was an accurate assumption.
Mia and Mel are lifelong friends and both share a passion for make-up and a more positive way of living. Their business, while a source of joy for them, is close to an end. But when Claire Luna appears on the scene Mel thinks it could be the answer to their financial worries, Mia is a little more sceptical. It appears that Claire is up to something but can they get to the bottom of everything before they lose their business, and each other?
Let us first give a round of applause to the uncredited actors in this film... Salma Hayek's breasts. They did sterling work, everyone else rather paled in comparison.
Now on to the serious things.
Let me be upfront about this... I will never want to watch this film again, if I happened across it being shown I would probably sit in silence for 83 minutes instead.
I love so many of the actors in this and yet I couldn't even rely on them to help this along. It's a fun premise and it had a cast that could definitely have made this great and yet somehow it's really quite poorly executed. Jokes didn't hit home and while I did chuckle a couple of times towards the end the beginning was not strong enough to be drama and not amusing enough to be comedy.
Billy Porter and Karan Soni probably come out the best from the whole ensemble. Porter has a very dramatic humour throughout and his delivery really helped. Soni's bitchy assistant wasn't overly complicated and had a fairly simple storyline to follow which allowed him to be more memorable.
I was rather disappointed with the hand that Jennifer Coolidge got dealt, she is amazingly funny and the humour in Like A Boss needed to give her something better to work with. Tiffany Haddish's return to over the top comedy also left me sad, having seen her in The Kitchen and being so impressed with her dramatic role I was really hoping she would try more of the same. While Mia is perfectly matched to her comedy stylings the script was severely lacking.
Everything about this seemed dated and it's very much a 90's feeling scenario. It felt like they were going for a bit of slapstick but left out the actual slapstick element. The confusion/disappointment did not stop there, the end of the film became evident quite early on and then it was just a case of waiting for it to happen without any anticipation.
The curious thing to me is the film's rating. There is absolutely no reason for this to be rated 15... that's to say that it didn't need any of the bits that would have caused it to be a 15, it easily could have been 12 and still had the same or hopefully a better impact.
Yes, there were some minor plus points but Like A Boss was overwhelmingly poor. I say that but it obviously has an audience out there because a lot of the people in our screening were laughing. Perhaps it would have helped me if so many key laughter points weren't shown in the trailer... but I think that's a little optimistic. On the plus side it did give me a chance to have a catch up with my friend around the dire movie.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/like-boss-movie-review.html
Mia and Mel are lifelong friends and both share a passion for make-up and a more positive way of living. Their business, while a source of joy for them, is close to an end. But when Claire Luna appears on the scene Mel thinks it could be the answer to their financial worries, Mia is a little more sceptical. It appears that Claire is up to something but can they get to the bottom of everything before they lose their business, and each other?
Let us first give a round of applause to the uncredited actors in this film... Salma Hayek's breasts. They did sterling work, everyone else rather paled in comparison.
Now on to the serious things.
Let me be upfront about this... I will never want to watch this film again, if I happened across it being shown I would probably sit in silence for 83 minutes instead.
I love so many of the actors in this and yet I couldn't even rely on them to help this along. It's a fun premise and it had a cast that could definitely have made this great and yet somehow it's really quite poorly executed. Jokes didn't hit home and while I did chuckle a couple of times towards the end the beginning was not strong enough to be drama and not amusing enough to be comedy.
Billy Porter and Karan Soni probably come out the best from the whole ensemble. Porter has a very dramatic humour throughout and his delivery really helped. Soni's bitchy assistant wasn't overly complicated and had a fairly simple storyline to follow which allowed him to be more memorable.
I was rather disappointed with the hand that Jennifer Coolidge got dealt, she is amazingly funny and the humour in Like A Boss needed to give her something better to work with. Tiffany Haddish's return to over the top comedy also left me sad, having seen her in The Kitchen and being so impressed with her dramatic role I was really hoping she would try more of the same. While Mia is perfectly matched to her comedy stylings the script was severely lacking.
Everything about this seemed dated and it's very much a 90's feeling scenario. It felt like they were going for a bit of slapstick but left out the actual slapstick element. The confusion/disappointment did not stop there, the end of the film became evident quite early on and then it was just a case of waiting for it to happen without any anticipation.
The curious thing to me is the film's rating. There is absolutely no reason for this to be rated 15... that's to say that it didn't need any of the bits that would have caused it to be a 15, it easily could have been 12 and still had the same or hopefully a better impact.
Yes, there were some minor plus points but Like A Boss was overwhelmingly poor. I say that but it obviously has an audience out there because a lot of the people in our screening were laughing. Perhaps it would have helped me if so many key laughter points weren't shown in the trailer... but I think that's a little optimistic. On the plus side it did give me a chance to have a catch up with my friend around the dire movie.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/like-boss-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Nine in Books
Sep 13, 2020
I've been a fan of Rachelle Dekker ever since I read The Girl Behind the Red Rope. When I saw that Rachelle Dekker had released a new book entitled Nine, I knew it was a book that I needed to read. I was so glad I picked this book up!
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot to Nine was solid. Zoe Johnson is busy working at her mundane job as a waitress when a young 17 year old girl shows up. From the get go, Zoe is protective of this young girl named Lucy who appears naive, scared, confused, and willing to trust anyone. However, trying to protect Lucy will have a high cost as Lucy is much more than she appears to be.
I read Nine in about a day. The pacing was so spot on that I didn't want to put this book down. The action starts out right in the first chapter and just carries on throughout the book. From the very first page, I was sucked into this suspenseful world Rachelle Dekker had masterfully created. Though it does have some similarities with the video game/movie Resident Evil (sans zombies), Dekker did a fantastic job at making the plot line feel original although it's been done many times before. There are a few plot twists including one that links back to The Girl Behind the Red Rope which I was very excited to read about! Yes, some of the plot twists are a bit predictable, but Nine is a very interesting story nonetheless.
I have to gush about the characters in Nine now. Dekker did an amazing job making her characters feel fleshed out. I felt as if the characters in Nine were people I actually knew in real life; that's how realistic these characters were written. I loved Zoe's character. Even though she had a sad story and baggage of her own, it was refreshing to see her actually put her trust and care about someone else. I will say I would have liked to know more about her brother Stephen and read more in detail about what happened to him. Perhaps Dekker will write a story about Stephen another time. Anyway, Zoe was an amazing character, and I could always feel what she felt from elation to deep sadness and more. Although Olivia isn't in the book very much, I also loved Olivia and how much she sacrificed for a certain experiment. Lucy was my favorite character, and it was interesting to be able to see her thought process starting in part two of Nine. Reading about her internal struggle with how she was raised versus who she wanted to be felt very emotional to me. We have all had that struggle with ourselves to become a better version of ourself. Seeley was a bit of a wild card. Sometimes I loved him, and other times I hated him although I could understand why he was doing what he did (not that it was justified for most of it). I would have hated to have the same ultimatum given to me as Hammon gave Seeley. Even all the minor characters (especially McCoy) I really enjoyed. Every character added to the story and fleshed it out even more.
Trigger warnings for Nine include violence (including gun violence), torture, and murder.
Overall, Nine is an emotional story with a positive message that really makes you think about how you can change no matter your given circumstances. Nine would make a fantastic movie or tv series, and I know I would watch it should anyone ever do that. I would definitely recommend Nine by Rachelle Dekker to those aged 16+ that love highly suspenseful stories that include a positive message.
--
(A special thank you to Revell for providing me with a paperback of Nine by Rachelle Dekker in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Douglas Branden (7 KP) rated Betrayal at House on the Hill in Tabletop Games
Mar 7, 2019
50 different scenarios (more if you get the expansion) (2 more)
Board layout is different everytime.
Fun theme and aesthetic
Character molds are some of the ugliest I have seen (1 more)
Some scenarios are highly favored towards the traitor or heroes
Great but has flaws
Betrayal at House on the Hill starts you off exploring a haunted house. It is up to you and other explorers to discover rooms and encounter the events that happen inside these rooms. At the beginning everyone works together but in the second half of the game one of you become the traitor and it's up to the rest of you to survive.
I have played this game quite a bit now and have a pretty good feel for this game. It comes with some glaring flaws such as the quality of the game pieces and sometimes overwhelming odds stacked in favor of the betrayer or hero. However, it is undeniable this game is fun for the constant exploration and not knowing what is going to come next.
The bad: Betrayal has some of the worst game pieces I have seen. The character molds are extremely ugly and the character cards are already starting to tear apart after multiple uses. The game play can also be dragged out a little too long especially for people not used to playing these games. I have noticed it is very hard for new players to understand how to play if they happen to become the traitor. You can't help out the traitor understand either as this can reveal the traitors gameplan and ruin the game play.
The Good: I love working as a team and exploring this house together. The events are often interesting and the items you get are usually useful. The scenarios are always interesting and remind me of low budget horror movie plots. You never know what is going to happen everytime you start a new game. I have seen this game also get people to come out of their shells if they are shy because you often have to consult with each other on strategy to defeat whatever comes up when the traitor is revealed.
Overall this is a fun game that should be in anyone's board game collection. Best when you have at least four people. Great for introducing to beginner board game players to board games outside of the popular board games that have been around for ages.
I have played this game quite a bit now and have a pretty good feel for this game. It comes with some glaring flaws such as the quality of the game pieces and sometimes overwhelming odds stacked in favor of the betrayer or hero. However, it is undeniable this game is fun for the constant exploration and not knowing what is going to come next.
The bad: Betrayal has some of the worst game pieces I have seen. The character molds are extremely ugly and the character cards are already starting to tear apart after multiple uses. The game play can also be dragged out a little too long especially for people not used to playing these games. I have noticed it is very hard for new players to understand how to play if they happen to become the traitor. You can't help out the traitor understand either as this can reveal the traitors gameplan and ruin the game play.
The Good: I love working as a team and exploring this house together. The events are often interesting and the items you get are usually useful. The scenarios are always interesting and remind me of low budget horror movie plots. You never know what is going to happen everytime you start a new game. I have seen this game also get people to come out of their shells if they are shy because you often have to consult with each other on strategy to defeat whatever comes up when the traitor is revealed.
Overall this is a fun game that should be in anyone's board game collection. Best when you have at least four people. Great for introducing to beginner board game players to board games outside of the popular board games that have been around for ages.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Frozen II (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019 (Updated Dec 2, 2019)
The Cucumber
Frozen 2 is not only better than Frozen but it also manages to develop its characters futher, delves deeper into its lore and overall tells a tale thats much darker and way more mature. Its apparent from the start of the movie that this sequel has more to say than just being a cheap cash in and as we check in on Elsa we see that although at first everything might seem happy it becomes aparent shes still struggling with demons and troubled on the inside. They clearly are not children anymore and thus dealing with the loss of both their parents is really starting to hit home as they enter the grieving process. This seems to effect Elsa in more ways than she can begin to process and as she struggles to tame her depression and get a hold on her mental health she closes up and alienates the people that are close to her. Its all incredibly dark stuff and at times it became so bleak that it had both adults and children in our screening breaking out in tears. Olaf does lighten things up occasionally however with some genuinely funny comedy, silly facts and some nice philosophy too with a role that feels important this time rather than there for comic relief. Pact with cool mythology and stuning visuals the film also manages to create not only a great coldness but an incredible warmth to really drive home its message of the importance of family and heritage. Elemental effects are extremely impressive too as is the improved animation quality and while the songs arnt as catchy this time they flow with more heart/meaning and with way more creativity visually too. Frozen 2 might not be perfect but as an adult it spoke to me more than the last one did and seeing it have the guts to mature and progress rather than replicate is a bold move I really respected. A truly magical fable full to the brim with lore and mythology that deals with such grown up isuess so respectfully and realistically that it will speak way more this time to adults than it does kids. Frozen 2 successfully teaches us all the message that we dont have to 'let It Go' or deal with our problems alone and by remembering and talking about those that are gone warms the heart and keeps them alive in us.