Search
Search results
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Mothergamer (1598 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Annabelle (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Annabelle is the newest demon-based spooky fright film produced by James Wan (producer Saw II-IV & director Insidious 1&2). The trailers would have you believe that it is a prequel to the Conjuring. Well I suppose it is, although a very loose prequel.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
Annabelle, the possessed doll, is mentioned a few times in “The Conjuring,” but it doesn’t contain any of the cast from the original . The film takes place in the 1970s and focuses on a married couple who have just moved in to a new house and the wife, Mia (Annabelle Wallis) is pregnant. Her husband (played extremely woodenly by actor Ward Horton) buys her a long sought after custom doll named Annabelle. Shortly after, the couple is attacked by their neighbors who we find are satanic cult members. Mia is stabbed in her belly (threatening the life of her child); the female Satanist neighbor dies clutching the Annabelle doll, her blood dripping and seemingly sucked into the eye socket of the doll, ushering in the demonic reign of Annabelle.
You’d assume that this is a standard “killer doll” horror flick, you’d also be a bit misled, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. This isn’t Chucky. You won’t see Annabelle speaking or running around the house brandishing a knife. That isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have its share of genre tropes, it has plenty of those.
As so many other possession/haunting movies involving a couple, for the most part the lonely wife is preyed upon while the husband is away at work. Throughout the film the writers find multiple ways of keeping Mia at home alone with the demon. John is called away on a business trip on one of the more traumatic encounters Mia has with Annabelle, resulting in Mia being placed on bed rest, giving her a reason to stay at home in the demons clutches. Later John is placed on the night shift, once again placing him out of the way so the demon can terrorize Mia at night where things are scary. It is inevitable that a scene takes place where her husband doesn’t believe her and thinks she’s going crazy. I can think of so many films that go this same route. The prerequisite priest comes along to help the family figure out their demonic happenings and oh yes, let’s not forget the sagely African American that needs to help Mia find her way and lead her both in knowledge of the demon and its demise. The story manages to throw in some mysterious children to once scene just to make sure that the trope is checked off the list. The remainder of the movie after the introductory attack by the satanic neighbors has Mia and later her child being threatened by the demon possessing Annabelle, the search for what it is, and what it wants and then its climax and disposal. Nothing new to this genre found here.
Annabelle does come with its share of scares (most of these can be seen in the previews), however the pacing is bad. I found myself bored out of my mind by the plot between the scares. So bored and disinterested that once the scary scenes occurred which seemed to be paced almost on a timer there wasn’t enough scare to raise the adrenaline needed to make it to the next fright. I will say that having a child endangered and threatened by the demonic spirit does bump up the tension and nerves and was a necessary inclusion to raise the stakes and pull out some reason to care about the victims by the audience.
Mia and John are so one-imensional that one would be hard-pressed to care about what happens to either of them. The demon effects are about as scary as a guy in a rubber suit lurking around a two-bit horror house, I mean pretty bad. I’ve seen a scarier demon on a TV episode of “Unsolved Mysteries” from 1988. Annabelle is good for a fright or two, and a reason to grab some popcorn and pig-out, but just be prepared to take a siesta three or four times in-between bouts of popcorn binge.
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 – except for Death Note. This movie is complete and utter trash. For those of you that don’t 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, I’ve 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), it’s like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (There’s 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 there’s only one notebook, there’s no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflix’s 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), it’s like these companies have an aversion to actually remaining faithful in any degree to the source material. (There’s 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 there’s only one notebook, there’s no Shinigami Rem, either. There are plot holes out the wazoo in Netflix’s 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 – 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 .