Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bride of Re-Animator (1990) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
The first Re-Animator definitely ranks in my personal top horrors of all time, and it's sequel isn't that far behind in quality.
First and foremost, Bride of Re-Animator is batshit insane, arguably more so than its predecessor. My the time the climax rolls around, there is just an unholy amount of crazy shit going on at once. It's genuinely quite challenging to take it all in, and it's nothing short of marvelous.
The effects work is outstanding. Practical effects and stop motion are used to bring a plethora of rejected experiments to life, and the whole film is just caked in gore and viscera (be prepared if you get funny about veins and ligaments...)
There's one particular moment that could well be one of the finest examples of body horror ever committed to screen.
The puppeteer of this madness is of course Herbert West, a bonafide icon of horror, and once again played by the great Jeffrey Combs. It's great to see David Gale and Bruce Abbott back for another stint as well, and Kathleen Kinmont gives it her all as the titular and showstopping Bride of Re-Animator.
The only real way that Bride falls short of the first movie is really down to pacing and structure. The payoff is fantastic, but the majority of film that comes beforehand feels a bit jumbled together (much like the Bride herself) and comes across as disjointed at times. Honestly, any character that isn't mentioned above is also just kind of there, but that's a minor grumble in a film that involves Hebert West.
Not quite as brilliant as the first Re-Animator then, but a suitably absurd sequel that can stand proud on its own merits.
First and foremost, Bride of Re-Animator is batshit insane, arguably more so than its predecessor. My the time the climax rolls around, there is just an unholy amount of crazy shit going on at once. It's genuinely quite challenging to take it all in, and it's nothing short of marvelous.
The effects work is outstanding. Practical effects and stop motion are used to bring a plethora of rejected experiments to life, and the whole film is just caked in gore and viscera (be prepared if you get funny about veins and ligaments...)
There's one particular moment that could well be one of the finest examples of body horror ever committed to screen.
The puppeteer of this madness is of course Herbert West, a bonafide icon of horror, and once again played by the great Jeffrey Combs. It's great to see David Gale and Bruce Abbott back for another stint as well, and Kathleen Kinmont gives it her all as the titular and showstopping Bride of Re-Animator.
The only real way that Bride falls short of the first movie is really down to pacing and structure. The payoff is fantastic, but the majority of film that comes beforehand feels a bit jumbled together (much like the Bride herself) and comes across as disjointed at times. Honestly, any character that isn't mentioned above is also just kind of there, but that's a minor grumble in a film that involves Hebert West.
Not quite as brilliant as the first Re-Animator then, but a suitably absurd sequel that can stand proud on its own merits.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Mother/Android (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Whilst there are a handful of positives about Mother/Android, they are woefully overshadowed by just how unoriginal the overall movie is.
Starting with said positives - Chloë Grace Moretz is always trying her best and here is no different. It's also nice to see Raúl Castillo popping up more and more at the moment and here is no different. There's a scene fairly late on, set in a house full of androids that is genuinely quite tense and is an obvious highlight.
Other than that, it's pretty dire. The dialogue is shoddy, and the writing is all over the place. None of the characters are particularly likable and there's not really anyone to root for (started rooting for the androids by the end). The opening scene is one of intrigue, promising something vaguely resembling Detroit: Become Human, but the story is rushed along so quickly that we're thrown straight into 9 months later, following a pregnant lady through some woods in America, whilst trying to stay silent. Very A Quiet Place. The android designs do nothing to differentiate from the designs seen in Terminator.
However, the most insulting moment of plagiarism comes during the climax, the events of which are quite bleak, and aim for the heartstrings. This moment is intercut with flashes of a happier time, whilst chaos unfolds in the distance, set to some somber music. All of which would have landed way better if it wasn't ripped straight from the undead hands of Train to Busan!
I'm sure that there will be plenty of people out there who find something to like when it comes to Mother/Android but for me, it just came across as plain lazy, lifting ideas from far superior movies left, right, and centre.
Starting with said positives - Chloë Grace Moretz is always trying her best and here is no different. It's also nice to see Raúl Castillo popping up more and more at the moment and here is no different. There's a scene fairly late on, set in a house full of androids that is genuinely quite tense and is an obvious highlight.
Other than that, it's pretty dire. The dialogue is shoddy, and the writing is all over the place. None of the characters are particularly likable and there's not really anyone to root for (started rooting for the androids by the end). The opening scene is one of intrigue, promising something vaguely resembling Detroit: Become Human, but the story is rushed along so quickly that we're thrown straight into 9 months later, following a pregnant lady through some woods in America, whilst trying to stay silent. Very A Quiet Place. The android designs do nothing to differentiate from the designs seen in Terminator.
However, the most insulting moment of plagiarism comes during the climax, the events of which are quite bleak, and aim for the heartstrings. This moment is intercut with flashes of a happier time, whilst chaos unfolds in the distance, set to some somber music. All of which would have landed way better if it wasn't ripped straight from the undead hands of Train to Busan!
I'm sure that there will be plenty of people out there who find something to like when it comes to Mother/Android but for me, it just came across as plain lazy, lifting ideas from far superior movies left, right, and centre.
David McK (3676 KP) rated Batman: Resurrection in Books
Apr 6, 2025
Michael Keaton's version of The Caped Crusader seems to have undergone something of a renaissance in recent years, with the publication of the Batman '89 graphic novels, and with his reappearance in the otherwise-disappointing movie 'The Flash' from 2023.
So roughly 35 or so years after the original 'Batman' film - which reimagined him from the camp flamboyant character of the '60s TV series to something altogether more serious - we get this novel, set between the events of 'Batman' And 'Batman Returns' and so set in the very-gothic Tim Burton version of Gotham instead of the more-grounded Christopher Nolan version: a Gotham that is still reeling from the after-effects of The Jokers gas attack towards the end of that film.
With said Gas, and the chemical attack earlier in the film in the form of Smylex, kickstarting the plot here by providing the reason behind the creation of what, to me, is one of the lesser-known of Batman's Rogue Gallery - a character that, without giving too much away, I only really first became aware of through playing the Arkham Asylum series of videogames, where he has a larger role in one of the later entries (and who has yet, to my knowledge, make it to the movies - ironic, when you consider his profession).
Him, and the puppeteer pulling his strings - both of whom I have encountered in said video games; neither of which have played a larger role (any?) in any of the live-action Batman films.
As an 'in-between' novel, there's also hints of things to come with cameo's from certain characters who will later play a larger role in Batman Returns, and by one character in particular who the upcoming sequel to this is going to centre on.
So roughly 35 or so years after the original 'Batman' film - which reimagined him from the camp flamboyant character of the '60s TV series to something altogether more serious - we get this novel, set between the events of 'Batman' And 'Batman Returns' and so set in the very-gothic Tim Burton version of Gotham instead of the more-grounded Christopher Nolan version: a Gotham that is still reeling from the after-effects of The Jokers gas attack towards the end of that film.
With said Gas, and the chemical attack earlier in the film in the form of Smylex, kickstarting the plot here by providing the reason behind the creation of what, to me, is one of the lesser-known of Batman's Rogue Gallery - a character that, without giving too much away, I only really first became aware of through playing the Arkham Asylum series of videogames, where he has a larger role in one of the later entries (and who has yet, to my knowledge, make it to the movies - ironic, when you consider his profession).
Him, and the puppeteer pulling his strings - both of whom I have encountered in said video games; neither of which have played a larger role (any?) in any of the live-action Batman films.
As an 'in-between' novel, there's also hints of things to come with cameo's from certain characters who will later play a larger role in Batman Returns, and by one character in particular who the upcoming sequel to this is going to centre on.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Feb 7, 2018
Surprisingly Entertaining
Contains spoilers, click to show
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS, but honestly nothing more than I’d already gathered from Twitter and talk /reviews on various other forms of social media. Still, you have been warned. Read no further than the following first paragraph if you don’t want to risk mild spoilage.
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
“Halloween” has long been considered by many to have been the film that started the “Slasher” subculture. The independent movie became a box office smash and made Michael Myers a cultural icon ever since its debut in 1978.
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Apr 8, 2020
Well Worth Watching
I'll start this review by stating for the record - I LIKE BLAKE LIVELY. I think the former Gossip Girl star is extremely watchable and interesting - and in the right role, can take over a film.
And...in A SIMPLE FAVOR...she is in the right role.
Also starring Anne Kendrick (INTO THE WOODS), A SIMPLE FAVOR tells the tale of a suburban mother (Kendrick) who forms a friendship with a lively (no pun intended) working mom (Lively) - from "The City" no less - who asks her friend for "A Simple Favor" - watch her child while she tends to some urgent business. When the working Mom goes missing, the suburban Mom starts snooping into what happened.
Directed by Paul Feig (BRIDESMAIDS), A SIMPLE FAVOR finds itself in a bit of a "no man's land" of style and genre. Is it a made for TV Movie like BIG LITTLE LIES (no...it's ambition and production style is more ambitious than that). Is it a "Major Motion Picture" a la GONE GIRL (no...it's not that ambitious). Is it a satire on the suburban Mom (partially), a whodunnit (partially), a mystery (partially) a black comedy (partially).
And that's what is in this film's favor - and it's biggest issue. It's hard to define and pin down and the feel of the film floats all over the place, as do the performances of the leading ladies.
Anna Kendrick is perfectly well suited to play the frumpy suburban Mom, Stephanie, who's underlying unhappiness is masked by the perma-grin and energy of that Mom who volunteers for EVERYTHING at school. She is more than balanced by Lively's scene-stealing performance as Emily the working Mom from NYC that doesn't take crap - or orders - from anybody. Their scenes together are uneven and unbalanced - and that is perfect for what Stephanie is going through. She encounters a force of nature in Emily and is just trying to hang on for dear life.
And there, again, is where the issues of this film (and it's strengths) show up. Sometimes - it seems - that Stephanie is getting a foothold, only to slip and fall. But then she gets her foothold stronger and a whole new character emerges, only to have it slip again...and then she is SNARKY...and slips back to mousey...and then she is CLEVER...and slips back to mousey...and the she...
You get the idea. It keeps the audience guessing and off-guard, but the change in tone hurts the overall flow of the film.
It, ultimately, becomes a fairly clever whoddunit that had me guessing (for the most part) until the end, so I have to admit - I ended up enjoying it - mostly because of Lively's energy.
Letter Grade: B+ (well worth your time to check out)
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And...in A SIMPLE FAVOR...she is in the right role.
Also starring Anne Kendrick (INTO THE WOODS), A SIMPLE FAVOR tells the tale of a suburban mother (Kendrick) who forms a friendship with a lively (no pun intended) working mom (Lively) - from "The City" no less - who asks her friend for "A Simple Favor" - watch her child while she tends to some urgent business. When the working Mom goes missing, the suburban Mom starts snooping into what happened.
Directed by Paul Feig (BRIDESMAIDS), A SIMPLE FAVOR finds itself in a bit of a "no man's land" of style and genre. Is it a made for TV Movie like BIG LITTLE LIES (no...it's ambition and production style is more ambitious than that). Is it a "Major Motion Picture" a la GONE GIRL (no...it's not that ambitious). Is it a satire on the suburban Mom (partially), a whodunnit (partially), a mystery (partially) a black comedy (partially).
And that's what is in this film's favor - and it's biggest issue. It's hard to define and pin down and the feel of the film floats all over the place, as do the performances of the leading ladies.
Anna Kendrick is perfectly well suited to play the frumpy suburban Mom, Stephanie, who's underlying unhappiness is masked by the perma-grin and energy of that Mom who volunteers for EVERYTHING at school. She is more than balanced by Lively's scene-stealing performance as Emily the working Mom from NYC that doesn't take crap - or orders - from anybody. Their scenes together are uneven and unbalanced - and that is perfect for what Stephanie is going through. She encounters a force of nature in Emily and is just trying to hang on for dear life.
And there, again, is where the issues of this film (and it's strengths) show up. Sometimes - it seems - that Stephanie is getting a foothold, only to slip and fall. But then she gets her foothold stronger and a whole new character emerges, only to have it slip again...and then she is SNARKY...and slips back to mousey...and then she is CLEVER...and slips back to mousey...and the she...
You get the idea. It keeps the audience guessing and off-guard, but the change in tone hurts the overall flow of the film.
It, ultimately, becomes a fairly clever whoddunit that had me guessing (for the most part) until the end, so I have to admit - I ended up enjoying it - mostly because of Lively's energy.
Letter Grade: B+ (well worth your time to check out)
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Max Winslow and the House of Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is a family film, very much in the vein of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Maxine Winslow (Sydne Mikelle), or Max for short, is our Charlie Bucket, coming from a single-parent family and living with a mother who is struggling with debt. Tech-savvy Max is also a skilled hacker, demonstrating this by taking control of her neighbours video doorbell and making it ring so that he comes running outside. Kind of like a modern-day Knock-Down Ginger.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Max heads into school, where we’re introduced to some more teens who are set to join her later on, including a social-media obsessed girl, a boy addicted to gaming and a boy who enjoys trolling people online. As they settle down at their desks, the face of eccentric billionaire Atticus Virtue (Chad Michael Murray) takes over all of the TV screens throughout the school. He tells them that five students are to be selected to spend the night in his high tech mansion, and undertake a series of games, with the winner becoming the new owner of the mansion. When the confirmation text messages start coming through to the student phones later that day, we already know most of those that receive the big green tick on their screens, so they head off to the mansion, ready to spend the night.
Atticus himself isn’t at the mansion to greet the group. Instead, an AI named Haven (voiced by Marina Sirtis) opens the door for them, orders a takeaway delivery and gives them their instructions for the night. Basically, whoever solves the most puzzles and earns the highest score wins the mansion!
The puzzles start off ridiculously hard, with a locked door requiring a six-digit code to open, and only three attempts allowed. Max spots three jars of candy in the room and automatically decides that the total pieces of candy in each jar can be combined into a six-digit number, obviously. And you’re not supposed to think about how she managed to get them in the right order, or why the plate of cookies on the table wasn’t included in the code…
From there, the points come a lot easier for the team, such as simply putting on a pair of sunglasses(!), before turning slightly sinister as the group separates and everyone heads off on their own. Haven begins to go a little bit rogue, although with her monotone delivery of thinly veiled threats, she never really comes across as scary as I think she is meant to be. The games become a way of showing each individual the error of their ways - narcissistic Sophia is trapped in a bathroom talking to her mirror reflection, which has now turned into a nastier version of herself, while others are trapped in VR scenarios designed to show them where they’ve gone wrong in life.
It’s at this point that the movie struggles. The VR recreations are mostly dull, while other scenes utilise some pretty dodgy VFX and there’s never any real feeling of peril or threat. The young cast, for the most part, give some pretty good performances. However, with a mediocre script, none of them is really given very much to work with. Consequently, some of them, particularly the character of Max, feel a little wasted, not fleshed out enough.
While entertaining at times, Max Winslow and the House of Secrets is too scary for young children and not dramatic or scary enough for adults to really enjoy. Hopefully, though, the teen audience that this is squarely aimed at will pick up on the strong moral messages at the heart of the movie and will manage to gain some enjoyment from it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Vacation (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Family holidays will never be the same
It was 1983 when Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo made the infamous decision to take their family across the US to “America’s Favourite Family Fun Park” in National Lampoon’s Vacation.
Being the best in the long-running series, it seemed natural for it to receive a fully-fledged sequel of some kind, but it has taken up until now to get the balance right, but does Vacation evoke memories of that brilliant road-trip comedy?
Ed Helms takes on the role of an adult Rusty Griswold as he, like his father makes the epic trip to Walley World theme park alongside his long-suffering wife Debbie (Christina Applegate) and his two sons James and Kevin, played by Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins respectively.
Everybody’s favourite thunder-god, Chris Hemsworth makes a rather revealing cameo as Rusty’s brother-in-law and ladies’ man, Stone Crandall, and helps lift Vacation out of what could have been a half-way lull.
Naturally, there are many tasteful references to its predecessor but this isn’t just a lesson in comedy history. Writers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley inject some much-needed modern humour into the film – this is most definitely a movie from the 21st Century.
Ed Helms and Christina Applegate have real chemistry as the married couple but it is in their children that most of the laughs are. James and Kevin are the stereotypical, bickering siblings but like everything in Vacation they are turned up to eleven.
From raw sewage infested hot springs to a would-be maniac truck driver, the gags on the whole hit the spot every single time – by no means an easy feat when writing a comedy over 90 minutes in length. There are a couple of ill-placed laughs like a Four Corners police brawl that threaten to stop the film in its tracks, but thankfully these are few and far between.
Short but sweet cameos for Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo towards the climax anchor Vacation to what came before it and it’s nice that the writers didn’t forget to honour those roots in more ways than sickly nostalgia.
The direction is also positively inspired. Acting like a tourist brochure for the USA, Vacation makes you feel like you’re part of the vast locations. From desolate highways to bustling cities, it’s all here and beautifully shot.
Unfortunately the plot seems to run a little out of steam towards the end. After all, there’s only so much déjà vu a story can take and it seems that the writers put all their best work in the first two thirds of the movie, as is the case with many films in the genre.
Nevertheless, Vacation is a confident film that knows exactly what it’s trying to be. Acting as a standalone comedy for newcomers and a decent sequel for fans of the original, it has something for everyone.
The acting is sublime and the casting choices are spot on, only a lacklustre final third pull it back from the edge of glory.
I probably won’t be planning that road trip any time soon.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/23/family-holidays-will-never-be-the-same-vacation-review/
Being the best in the long-running series, it seemed natural for it to receive a fully-fledged sequel of some kind, but it has taken up until now to get the balance right, but does Vacation evoke memories of that brilliant road-trip comedy?
Ed Helms takes on the role of an adult Rusty Griswold as he, like his father makes the epic trip to Walley World theme park alongside his long-suffering wife Debbie (Christina Applegate) and his two sons James and Kevin, played by Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins respectively.
Everybody’s favourite thunder-god, Chris Hemsworth makes a rather revealing cameo as Rusty’s brother-in-law and ladies’ man, Stone Crandall, and helps lift Vacation out of what could have been a half-way lull.
Naturally, there are many tasteful references to its predecessor but this isn’t just a lesson in comedy history. Writers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley inject some much-needed modern humour into the film – this is most definitely a movie from the 21st Century.
Ed Helms and Christina Applegate have real chemistry as the married couple but it is in their children that most of the laughs are. James and Kevin are the stereotypical, bickering siblings but like everything in Vacation they are turned up to eleven.
From raw sewage infested hot springs to a would-be maniac truck driver, the gags on the whole hit the spot every single time – by no means an easy feat when writing a comedy over 90 minutes in length. There are a couple of ill-placed laughs like a Four Corners police brawl that threaten to stop the film in its tracks, but thankfully these are few and far between.
Short but sweet cameos for Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo towards the climax anchor Vacation to what came before it and it’s nice that the writers didn’t forget to honour those roots in more ways than sickly nostalgia.
The direction is also positively inspired. Acting like a tourist brochure for the USA, Vacation makes you feel like you’re part of the vast locations. From desolate highways to bustling cities, it’s all here and beautifully shot.
Unfortunately the plot seems to run a little out of steam towards the end. After all, there’s only so much déjà vu a story can take and it seems that the writers put all their best work in the first two thirds of the movie, as is the case with many films in the genre.
Nevertheless, Vacation is a confident film that knows exactly what it’s trying to be. Acting as a standalone comedy for newcomers and a decent sequel for fans of the original, it has something for everyone.
The acting is sublime and the casting choices are spot on, only a lacklustre final third pull it back from the edge of glory.
I probably won’t be planning that road trip any time soon.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/23/family-holidays-will-never-be-the-same-vacation-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Bachelor Party (1984) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019
Verdict: Wild Party
Story: Bachelor Party starts when Rick (Hanks) announces to his friends, Jay (Zmed), Rudy (Diamond), Gary (Grossman), Ryko (Dudikoff) that he is going to marry his girlfriend Debbie (Kitaen), which means one thing for the guys, a bachelor party. Rick is trusted by Debbie, but her father Ed (Grizzard) doesn’t like him and wants his selection Cole (Prescott) to marry his daughter.
With the bachelor party underway, the boys think they are going to have a couple of strippers, few drinks and a good time, only for Cole to bring problems to the party in his attempts to break up the couple, meanwhile Debbie is having her own quieter party with her friends, which is also in Cole’s plans.
Thoughts on Bachelor Party
Characters – Rick is considered a bit of a slacker, he drives a school bus and hasn’t ever put his life into any order, he does however decide to marry his girlfriend against her father’s wishes, he is used to getting abused by people who look down on him, though he is the friend that will always be there for a friend in need. Debbie is the future bride, she comes from a rich family which she is tired of the lifestyle that looks down on people and sees the pure nature in Rick. Jay is the best friend that is always trying to get Rick in trouble, he loves to party too. Ed is the father of Debbie, he always looks down on Rick never seeing him as good enough for his daughter and wants to end the relationship before it gets started.
Performances – Tom Hanks is the clear standout in this film, you get to see how he has a different level of acting abilities than most people in the film being able to do the sleazy moments, while bring a human friendship figure to life. The rest of the cast do work for their roles, the party animals work well, the upper-class characters and the one trying to steal the girl work too.
Story – The story here follows a slacker that is going to marry the love of his life, but before he must have a bachelor party which soon gets out of control. This film doesn’t have the deepest story, it dives into the idea parents don’t always approve of the potential loved ones, your friends will want you have one last mad night before you get married and needing to avoid the person trying to take apart you life. This is everything that we know from the wild party film, it plays out like a checklist without being anything new, but easy to enjoy.
Comedy – The comedy in this film enters us into the wild party, we get to see how things go wrong, they will get us laughing at times even if certain jokes might not have aged well.
Settings – The film is set in a hotel room for the party, we get to see how the guests get themselves into trouble through the night, looking for extra people to join the party.
Scene of the Movie – 3D experience.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The donkey.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun 80s party movie, which bought us an early role from Tom Hanks, it is everything you expect and can be a good time for all.
Overall: Simple, fun and entertaining.
Rating
Story: Bachelor Party starts when Rick (Hanks) announces to his friends, Jay (Zmed), Rudy (Diamond), Gary (Grossman), Ryko (Dudikoff) that he is going to marry his girlfriend Debbie (Kitaen), which means one thing for the guys, a bachelor party. Rick is trusted by Debbie, but her father Ed (Grizzard) doesn’t like him and wants his selection Cole (Prescott) to marry his daughter.
With the bachelor party underway, the boys think they are going to have a couple of strippers, few drinks and a good time, only for Cole to bring problems to the party in his attempts to break up the couple, meanwhile Debbie is having her own quieter party with her friends, which is also in Cole’s plans.
Thoughts on Bachelor Party
Characters – Rick is considered a bit of a slacker, he drives a school bus and hasn’t ever put his life into any order, he does however decide to marry his girlfriend against her father’s wishes, he is used to getting abused by people who look down on him, though he is the friend that will always be there for a friend in need. Debbie is the future bride, she comes from a rich family which she is tired of the lifestyle that looks down on people and sees the pure nature in Rick. Jay is the best friend that is always trying to get Rick in trouble, he loves to party too. Ed is the father of Debbie, he always looks down on Rick never seeing him as good enough for his daughter and wants to end the relationship before it gets started.
Performances – Tom Hanks is the clear standout in this film, you get to see how he has a different level of acting abilities than most people in the film being able to do the sleazy moments, while bring a human friendship figure to life. The rest of the cast do work for their roles, the party animals work well, the upper-class characters and the one trying to steal the girl work too.
Story – The story here follows a slacker that is going to marry the love of his life, but before he must have a bachelor party which soon gets out of control. This film doesn’t have the deepest story, it dives into the idea parents don’t always approve of the potential loved ones, your friends will want you have one last mad night before you get married and needing to avoid the person trying to take apart you life. This is everything that we know from the wild party film, it plays out like a checklist without being anything new, but easy to enjoy.
Comedy – The comedy in this film enters us into the wild party, we get to see how things go wrong, they will get us laughing at times even if certain jokes might not have aged well.
Settings – The film is set in a hotel room for the party, we get to see how the guests get themselves into trouble through the night, looking for extra people to join the party.
Scene of the Movie – 3D experience.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The donkey.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun 80s party movie, which bought us an early role from Tom Hanks, it is everything you expect and can be a good time for all.
Overall: Simple, fun and entertaining.
Rating