Search
Search results
85 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards
Book
A deluxe, year-by-year chronicle of the Academy Awards, with an entertaining text, hundreds of...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Half Baked (1998) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021
Ironically, not even that much better while high. I liked this for the majority of the runtime but that third act really tried my patience - falls into the exact line as other late 90s/early 00s buddy comedies in vein of ππΆπ₯π¦, ππ©π¦π³π¦'π΄ ππΊ ππ’π³? and the like that I just fucking hate, where the film completely gives up and a bunch of tiring 'wacky' stuff happens until it abruptly ends. Pretty typical hit-or-miss stoner comedy of the era but easy to forgive when the thing isn't even 85 minutes in length. It's agreeable enough with some seriously funny shit in it every now and again, mostly only holding its own in the sea of other similar movies due to its trio of three sharp, exuberant lead performances - Jim Breuer's final boss tie-dyed pothead steals the show with extreme prejudice (seriously, has anyone else in a movie ever exuded *more* stoner energy than this guy?). Can be lumped right in with ππͺπ΄π΄ ππ’π³π€π© in the "kind of funny, semi-decent films written by people who are clearly above such work but also maybe that was the point of it to begin with?" pile. But Bob Saget's "I used to suck dick for coke!" bit remains as iconic and effortlessly hysterical as ever.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Reaping (2007) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
You'd think a movie about Hilary Swank and Idris Elba fighting the ten biblical plagues would have been somewhat more exciting, no? Can't think of many other ways they could have made this less thrilling or scary (one of those lazy farts that actively tries to make its jumpscares predictable) - but points for God-tier southern bible-belt madman David Morrissey and frightening wounded animal-esque AnnaSophia Robb, neither of whom are used nearly enough. Might possibly be one of the most tame R-ratings in cinema history, purposefully skipping out on the gore and ick like it's trying desperately to hold onto the PG-13 rating it doesn't have. Has a couple nice-looking shots, and (finally) starts getting quite creepy + fun in the back end but it still looks like shit. Seriously, I hope that when the plagues do start hitting planet Earth they at least aren't this contrived and badly-rendered. I'm also convinced that this script was still on the first draft when this empty drag was made because not only is it full of holes but none of the numerous last-minute twists were climactic and just seemed to rush themselves right out the door. Not even that awful just... not really of any value.
Lenard (726 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 6, 2020
David Fincher has spent two decades working to adapt his father's screenplay about Herman Mankiewicz. He succeeded in a major triumph. Gary Oldman plays the alcoholic washed up screenwriter hired by New York wunderkind Orson Welles to write the first draft of the screenplay for his first film. The resulting film, Citizen Kane, would change moviemaking for generations even if the battle to get it made, released, and seen lasted two industry cycles.
Mank is a wonder to behold technically. The production design, editing, and cinematography takes you back to an earlier Hollywood era. Its use of flashback, mirroring Kane, fills in the blank as to how Mank was in this world and why he was willing to burn it. The movie even foreshadows events that would.shape the screenplay Mank is writing.
My greatest pleasure was how its relevance continues today, but without the explicit shoutouts or manipulation of events. Do you know the parable of the organ grinder's monkey? If you don't, Mank tells you, but never exposes the reason it resonates. Also, even if you have seen other works about WRH, you still learn more about him. Mank is great and will get many Oscar nominations. Amanda Seyfried gives Marion Davies the star turn she never had in life.
Mank is a wonder to behold technically. The production design, editing, and cinematography takes you back to an earlier Hollywood era. Its use of flashback, mirroring Kane, fills in the blank as to how Mank was in this world and why he was willing to burn it. The movie even foreshadows events that would.shape the screenplay Mank is writing.
My greatest pleasure was how its relevance continues today, but without the explicit shoutouts or manipulation of events. Do you know the parable of the organ grinder's monkey? If you don't, Mank tells you, but never exposes the reason it resonates. Also, even if you have seen other works about WRH, you still learn more about him. Mank is great and will get many Oscar nominations. Amanda Seyfried gives Marion Davies the star turn she never had in life.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wounds (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Will's life isn't that complicated, he does his shifts at the bar, comes home to his girlfriend Carrie and in between he flirts with one of the regulars, Alicia.
Life in the bar is pretty predictable, everyone drinks too much and there's the occasional fight. On this particular evening things get even stranger. When Eric and his friends arrive already drunk Will leaves them be, he's more intrigued by the group of college kids who arrive looking quite out of place. Everything is turned upside down when Eric and his friends start fighting and bring the night to a quick end.
Clearing up the debris Will finds a phone belonging to one of the kids, he takes it home intending to put it in lost property the next day but before that happens he discovers some shocking images that lead him and Carrie down a terrifying rabbit hole.
Wounds has a nice idea behind it but once I came out of the film and started thinking about it I began realising that somehow it's all just a little vague. One of the things I like about films with sci-fi and supernatural leanings is finding out about where the "things" have come from, in Wounds they give you a hint about it but nothing solid to go on. Will and Carrie are only given the vaguest of clues about what is happening and it's surprisingly frustrating. It felt very much like we'd been handed film two in a series and somewhere along the line we'd be handed the first film as a prequel and watch it end as they drop the phone in the bar.
We're also probably subjected to a little too much drama. The beginning takes a while to get to the horror aspect of things. By the time it came out I was genuinely surprised. I'd assumed the horror tag was added at a stretch as it was coming across as a thriller more than everything else. Certainly the drama portion seemed to be unnecessary to most of what was going on by the end of the film.
Armie Hammer plays Will in the main role of the movie. Will's journey goes through a lot of stages, potentially too many. It does at least work in a sensible progression rather than jumping around. Hammer is convincing in all stages even if they do seem a little far fetched but I would personally have axed some of it.
Here's what I would have done... Zazie Beetz was great and I love her in everything I've seen, in my opinion she was underused in this film. I'd have given her the role of Carrie and expanded it slightly while cutting Alicia and her boyfriend out completely. Beetz's performance was great but there wasn't really anything to get her teeth into when it came to the horror side of everything. She had great chemistry with Hammer onscreen which I didn't get from his performances with Johnson. Johnson's performance in general felt underwhelming, Carrie wasn't going to be a likeable character but she could have been so much more.
Sound plays a very big part in the film. As I mentioned at the beginning creepy crawlies play a big part in Wounds, and even when they're not there you know they're there. It's incredibly well done because more than once I found myself getting twitchy that I could hear them in the background of scenes. The other noticeable sound related issue was around the phone, at one point Will answers the mobile and we're subjected to a loud piercing tone that cuts right through you. Again, fantastic use of sound, but in this instance while it makes you feel the unease of Will as it happens it is also painfully loud for anyone who is even slightly sensitive to things like that.
The film uses effects to create the swarms of bugs... although saying that, if they didn't then it's a very impressive bunch of cockroach wranglers they have on staff. The effects themselves aren't fantastic but when they happen it's so fast that it kind of works in the moment.
It might not be the best horror film but it certainly wasn't a bad watch. It comes out on Netflix tomorrow, I won't be seeing it again right away but it's definitely going onto the Watchlist for the future.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/wounds-movie-review.html
Life in the bar is pretty predictable, everyone drinks too much and there's the occasional fight. On this particular evening things get even stranger. When Eric and his friends arrive already drunk Will leaves them be, he's more intrigued by the group of college kids who arrive looking quite out of place. Everything is turned upside down when Eric and his friends start fighting and bring the night to a quick end.
Clearing up the debris Will finds a phone belonging to one of the kids, he takes it home intending to put it in lost property the next day but before that happens he discovers some shocking images that lead him and Carrie down a terrifying rabbit hole.
Wounds has a nice idea behind it but once I came out of the film and started thinking about it I began realising that somehow it's all just a little vague. One of the things I like about films with sci-fi and supernatural leanings is finding out about where the "things" have come from, in Wounds they give you a hint about it but nothing solid to go on. Will and Carrie are only given the vaguest of clues about what is happening and it's surprisingly frustrating. It felt very much like we'd been handed film two in a series and somewhere along the line we'd be handed the first film as a prequel and watch it end as they drop the phone in the bar.
We're also probably subjected to a little too much drama. The beginning takes a while to get to the horror aspect of things. By the time it came out I was genuinely surprised. I'd assumed the horror tag was added at a stretch as it was coming across as a thriller more than everything else. Certainly the drama portion seemed to be unnecessary to most of what was going on by the end of the film.
Armie Hammer plays Will in the main role of the movie. Will's journey goes through a lot of stages, potentially too many. It does at least work in a sensible progression rather than jumping around. Hammer is convincing in all stages even if they do seem a little far fetched but I would personally have axed some of it.
Here's what I would have done... Zazie Beetz was great and I love her in everything I've seen, in my opinion she was underused in this film. I'd have given her the role of Carrie and expanded it slightly while cutting Alicia and her boyfriend out completely. Beetz's performance was great but there wasn't really anything to get her teeth into when it came to the horror side of everything. She had great chemistry with Hammer onscreen which I didn't get from his performances with Johnson. Johnson's performance in general felt underwhelming, Carrie wasn't going to be a likeable character but she could have been so much more.
Sound plays a very big part in the film. As I mentioned at the beginning creepy crawlies play a big part in Wounds, and even when they're not there you know they're there. It's incredibly well done because more than once I found myself getting twitchy that I could hear them in the background of scenes. The other noticeable sound related issue was around the phone, at one point Will answers the mobile and we're subjected to a loud piercing tone that cuts right through you. Again, fantastic use of sound, but in this instance while it makes you feel the unease of Will as it happens it is also painfully loud for anyone who is even slightly sensitive to things like that.
The film uses effects to create the swarms of bugs... although saying that, if they didn't then it's a very impressive bunch of cockroach wranglers they have on staff. The effects themselves aren't fantastic but when they happen it's so fast that it kind of works in the moment.
It might not be the best horror film but it certainly wasn't a bad watch. It comes out on Netflix tomorrow, I won't be seeing it again right away but it's definitely going onto the Watchlist for the future.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/wounds-movie-review.html
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Death Note (2017) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Netflix has done a damn good job with its house produced movies and shows β except for Death Note. This movie is complete and utter trash. For those of you that donβt know, I ran a site that focused largely on anime for several years. The site was called Project Otaku and served as a press outlet as well (I was able to attend Japan Expo as press and one of my writers attended NYCC). So naturally, Iβve seen the anime and I had high expectations.
First, it should be noted that with this film, Netflix joined the ranks of the Hollywood studios that have white-washed and bastardized several remakes of Asian horror films. From Oldboy to The Grudge to Ghost in the Shell (and countless others), itβs like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (Thereβs rumors that my favorite Japanese horror flick, Audition, will soon fall prey to this too.) Honestly, they should just stop.
This version of Death Note takes place in Seattle, thus localizing it to the US. There is also no second notebook, which in the anime and manga are used to misdirect law enforcement. Because thereβs only one notebook, thereβs no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflixβs adaptation, including modification of rules for no apparent reason (such as the days the Death Note can be lost).
Overall, I regret watching this. It was a waste of my time.
First, it should be noted that with this film, Netflix joined the ranks of the Hollywood studios that have white-washed and bastardized several remakes of Asian horror films. From Oldboy to The Grudge to Ghost in the Shell (and countless others), itβs like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (Thereβs rumors that my favorite Japanese horror flick, Audition, will soon fall prey to this too.) Honestly, they should just stop.
This version of Death Note takes place in Seattle, thus localizing it to the US. There is also no second notebook, which in the anime and manga are used to misdirect law enforcement. Because thereβs only one notebook, thereβs no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflixβs adaptation, including modification of rules for no apparent reason (such as the days the Death Note can be lost).
Overall, I regret watching this. It was a waste of my time.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode II β Attack of the Clones (2002) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019 (Updated Dec 19, 2019)
Attack of the Clones is easily my least favourite Star Wars movie, but still, I can't bring myself to completely hate it. It's still Star Wars. It's still a big part of my childhood.
The main issues for me lie within the story, and perhaps most infamously, the romance plot between Anakin and Padme. It's an integral part of the story for sure, but the dialogue is horrible, Hayden Christensen is oddly wooden, and unfortunately, it takes up a big part of Episode II's runtime.
I also find the action set pieces in AOTC a very mixed bag. Nothing particularly stands out, except maybe the arena fight scene with hundreds of Jedis, and the potentially great chase scene near the start is soiled by the needlessly quippy script work.
It's not all bad though. There are some great actors involved - Ewan McGregor is still awesome as Obi Wan, and of course, we're introduced to Count Dooku, played by the ever incredible Christopher Lee (although is character is ultimately pointless).
Locations such as Kamino are something new and different and great to look at, and then of course, the single most important thing about AOTC - it paved the way for the Clone Wars TV show, so it definitely deserves credit for that.
Unfortunately, Episode II feels overstuffed with a while lot of nothing, and is no where the same quality as Star Wars at it's very best, but like I said, I can't hate on it too much. For better or worse, it's part of the Star Wars experience.
The main issues for me lie within the story, and perhaps most infamously, the romance plot between Anakin and Padme. It's an integral part of the story for sure, but the dialogue is horrible, Hayden Christensen is oddly wooden, and unfortunately, it takes up a big part of Episode II's runtime.
I also find the action set pieces in AOTC a very mixed bag. Nothing particularly stands out, except maybe the arena fight scene with hundreds of Jedis, and the potentially great chase scene near the start is soiled by the needlessly quippy script work.
It's not all bad though. There are some great actors involved - Ewan McGregor is still awesome as Obi Wan, and of course, we're introduced to Count Dooku, played by the ever incredible Christopher Lee (although is character is ultimately pointless).
Locations such as Kamino are something new and different and great to look at, and then of course, the single most important thing about AOTC - it paved the way for the Clone Wars TV show, so it definitely deserves credit for that.
Unfortunately, Episode II feels overstuffed with a while lot of nothing, and is no where the same quality as Star Wars at it's very best, but like I said, I can't hate on it too much. For better or worse, it's part of the Star Wars experience.
Filmfare Magazine
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
For over five decades now, Filmfare has been the official handbook on everything Bollywood for the...
Dance Me a Song: Astaire, Balanchine, Kelly and the American Film Musical
Book
Dance Me a Song traces the history of famous Hollywood collaborations as the palimpsest of dance,...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2019 (Updated Sep 20, 2019)
The crown jewel in Fox's X-Men saga
Logan is easily one of the best comic book movies out there.
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .
This is the third solo outing for Wolverine (following one garbage pile attempt, and one annoyingly average attempt), James Mangold really pulled it out of the bag for this one.
The characters are great - Hugh Jackman at the top of his game for his final performance as Logan. He's a grizzled and pain ridden man, in this bleak, mutantless future.
Patrick Stewart is also at his best here as Charles Xavier. The two of them are the beating heart of this movie.
We're introduced to Dafne Keen (playing a young X-23) who rounds out the small cast nicely.
As Logan fights a shadowy organization to keep her safe, the stakes have never been higher, and no one feels safe at any point - something that has never really been explored in the X-Men franchise.
Logan is a hard film to watch, it's bleak, its gritty, it's not particularly colourful (especially if you opt for the brilliant Noir version), and it's brutally violent in parts.
The set pieces are nasty in places, and sometimes pretty shocking, but it all aids the narrative here - the narrative that Wolverine is an ailing old man, who is struggling against all odds to do one last good deed, and protect the few people that still mean something to him.
It's an emotional and powerful film, that deserves all the praise bestowed upon it - amazing work from everyone involved .