Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Catfish (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nev Schulman is a photographer of dance that catches the eye of an 8 year old girl named Abby when one of his pictures is published nationally. She sends Nev a painting of his published picture, which begins a rather incredible friendship. Nev eventually gets the chance to talk to Abby's mom, Angela, and her older sister, Megan. Megan and Nev really start to hit it off and a relationship begins to form. That is until many of the things Megan has been telling Nev begin drifting further and further from the truth. Nev decides to fly to Michigan and get the answers he so desperately desires.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2019 (Updated Oct 5, 2019)
You were never really here.
Joker buries a knife deep into your chest right from the start and just when you feel it might finally be pulled out to give you relief it twists it in a little deeper. Make no mistake about it Joker is a slow burn drama/character study so those expecting big action and Batman are in for a real shock here but then again thats also what I think is so special. Joker works hard and earns its big explosive moments with such a steady, progresive, careful character build up that ensures when vilolence hits its shocking, powrful, cold and chilling and thats whats so refreshing and brave about it especially for a mainstream film. Theres no hand holding, no sugar coating and no holding back here and its absolutely riveting and glorious to behold playing out a cross between taxi driver and you were never really here joaquin phoenix plays an already dangerously unstable man pushed over his breaking point by life and society. From the moment we first set eyes on Arthur we see his pain seeping out through his pupils and an insight into his tortured mind. Its a story about an already fragile mind being pushed to a point where it finally snaps and shows how especially without the right help and support an avoidable monster is unleashed. We have all become so uncaring and selfish because of our own problems in life we fail to care and empathise with each other but its lack of care and understanding of mental ilness (treating it esentially like a joke) that leads Arther to finally snap. When he does finaly give its like a release for him all his sadness, anxiety and lack of confidence vanishes and we see man reshaped and reborn. Then theres his uncontrolable laugh which seems to come about when he's anxious or stressed and actually feels like it physicaly pains him everytime its released. Character progression is steady and realistic this man is clearly sick, had a rough upbringing, suffering from mental illness and he longs for a father figure and just to be loved which he tries to achieve from performing. Theres so many themes explored here the big one being how society and the media are partaily responsible for glamorising and encouraging violent behavior/serial killers making them popular/trendy and swaying other fragile tried and tested minds to rise up a follow the lead. Theres just so much to say about this film and its frying my head trying to get it all down and in readable state. At the end of the day Joker is fantastic and without a doubt the best comic book movie we have had to date setting the bar for all those that follow now. Its mature, graphic, highly depresing, intricate, unnerving, relevant and iteligent leaving such a thought provoking lasting impression that you cant help but be fearful and worried about the current state of the world we live in and how its changing for the worse becoming such a terifying and unsafe place.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Christopher Robin (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Winnie the Pooh, the much love bear created by A.A. Milne and E.H. Shepard, has been brought by Disney in enchantingly live action in Christopher Robin. The story begins in the hundred acre woods where little Christopher Robin is spending his last day having a picnic with his dear friends: Eeyore(Brad Garrett), Owl(Toby Jones), Rabbit(Peter Capaldi), Kanga(Sophie Okonedo) and Roo(Sara Sheen), Piglet(Nick Mohammed) Tigger and Pooh(Both beautifully voiced by Jim Cummings). The voice actor cast was rather surprising, but quite spot on for each character. I was absolutely drawn into Christopher Robin’s world.
We are transported through Christopher Robin’s journey from boarding school as a child, his teenage years through secondary education, to becoming an adult, meeting Evelyn(Hayley Atwell) who becomes his wife, leaving for World War II, returning from war to his wife and young daughter Madeline(Bronte Carmichael). Christopher Robin(Ewan McGregor) is now a grown man, working for Winslow, making luggage for the travelling set. He has been tasked to find ways to reduce waste for efficiency. Times are tough after the war and not many people are spending money on travel, therefore no one is buying luggage for their trips. His boss, Giles Winslow(Mark Gatiss, who seems to enjoy playing this feckless git) expects him to work through the weekend to come up with ideas to meet an overall 20% reduction or else Winslow will cut the workforce.
The plan was to spend his weekend with his family down at the cottage. The order from his boss has once again upended his plans. Christopher Robin is a grown man indeed and he has not smiled or had any fun for the longest time. He has become so serious even his wife was looking for his smile. While he works through the weekend. Evelyn decides that Madelyn needs to play and proceeds with the visit to the cottage.
While we follow Christopher Robin as he walks through life, we also see Winnie the Pooh at the tree to the hundred acre woods waiting every day for Christopher Robin’s return. One day, Pooh wakes to an empty woods where he cannot find any of his friends. He goes through the door in the tree hoping to find Christopher Robin and get help because he fears that his friends have been taken by the Heffalumps and Woozles.
Ewan McGregor plays Christopher Robin as an adult with such sincerity and honesty, that we all believe that Pooh and his friends truly exist in the film. The hundred acre woods magically come alive in the movie, capturing the colors of autumn and the warmth of the sunshine on the meadows. The score includes favorites that are the signature of the characters. It will have you quietly singing the words to the well known tunes.
For those that love Winnie the Pooh as I do and have fond memories of your own childhood or of your children’s, this movie was so enjoyable, heartwarmingly satisfying. Go as an adult, go with the kids (grown and little) its not a summer action film, but it is such a lovely movie by Disney with such a well told tale of old friends.
We are transported through Christopher Robin’s journey from boarding school as a child, his teenage years through secondary education, to becoming an adult, meeting Evelyn(Hayley Atwell) who becomes his wife, leaving for World War II, returning from war to his wife and young daughter Madeline(Bronte Carmichael). Christopher Robin(Ewan McGregor) is now a grown man, working for Winslow, making luggage for the travelling set. He has been tasked to find ways to reduce waste for efficiency. Times are tough after the war and not many people are spending money on travel, therefore no one is buying luggage for their trips. His boss, Giles Winslow(Mark Gatiss, who seems to enjoy playing this feckless git) expects him to work through the weekend to come up with ideas to meet an overall 20% reduction or else Winslow will cut the workforce.
The plan was to spend his weekend with his family down at the cottage. The order from his boss has once again upended his plans. Christopher Robin is a grown man indeed and he has not smiled or had any fun for the longest time. He has become so serious even his wife was looking for his smile. While he works through the weekend. Evelyn decides that Madelyn needs to play and proceeds with the visit to the cottage.
While we follow Christopher Robin as he walks through life, we also see Winnie the Pooh at the tree to the hundred acre woods waiting every day for Christopher Robin’s return. One day, Pooh wakes to an empty woods where he cannot find any of his friends. He goes through the door in the tree hoping to find Christopher Robin and get help because he fears that his friends have been taken by the Heffalumps and Woozles.
Ewan McGregor plays Christopher Robin as an adult with such sincerity and honesty, that we all believe that Pooh and his friends truly exist in the film. The hundred acre woods magically come alive in the movie, capturing the colors of autumn and the warmth of the sunshine on the meadows. The score includes favorites that are the signature of the characters. It will have you quietly singing the words to the well known tunes.
For those that love Winnie the Pooh as I do and have fond memories of your own childhood or of your children’s, this movie was so enjoyable, heartwarmingly satisfying. Go as an adult, go with the kids (grown and little) its not a summer action film, but it is such a lovely movie by Disney with such a well told tale of old friends.
Vizzywig 2014 - Video Editor Multi Camera
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
The world's first all-in-one, movie-making application for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch that lets...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) in Movies
Oct 15, 2020
Lon Chaney Jr. (1 more)
Bela Lugosi
Huge Disappointment
Contains spoilers, click to show
Frankenstien Meets The Wolf Man- was a huge disappointment but ill get to that later. First lets talk about the film.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
The plot: Lawrence Stewart Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is plagued by a physical oddity that turns him into a crazed werewolf after sundown. His desire to rid himself of this ailment leads him to the castle owned by mad scientist Dr. Frankenstein. Frankenstein, it turns out, is now dead, yet Talbot believes that the scientist's daughter, Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (Ilona Massey), can help him. However, his quest to right himself puts him on a collision course with Frankenstein's monster (Bela Lugosi).
This was the first of a series of "ensemble" monster films combining characters from several film series. This film, therefore, is both the fifth in the series of films based upon Mary Shelley's 1818 book Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, directly after The Ghost of Frankenstein, and a sequel to The Wolf Man.
As ultimately edited and released, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is told in two almost equal parts. The opening scenes tell the story of Talbot's resurrection, killing spree, hospitalization, and escape across Europe. Much time is spent with a secondary policeman, Inspector Owen, and on scenes with a desperate Talbot hospitalized by Dr. Mannering. The discovery of the Monster and pursuit of Dr. Frankenstein's scientific notes do not begin until thirty-five minutes into the film. The second half introduces the Monster, Elsa, and the village of Vasaria and its inhabitants.
Immediately following his success in Dracula, Bela Lugosi had been the first choice to play the Monster in Universal's original Frankenstein film, but Lugosi famously turned down the nonspeaking, heavily made-up role: as conceived by the original director Robert Florey, the Monster was nothing more than a mindless killing machine and not suitable for Lugosi's rising stardom and career as a leading actor, and the original make-up for Lugosi's screen test was closely based on the doll-like clay robot in The Golem.
Eight years later, Lugosi joined the film as the Monster's twisted companion Ygor in Son of Frankenstein. He returned to the role in the sequel, The Ghost of Frankenstein, in which Ygor's brain is implanted into the Monster (now Chaney), causing the creature to take on Lugosi/Ygor's voice. After plans for Chaney to play both the Monster and the Wolf Man in the next film fell through for logistical reasons (Chaney demurred), the natural next step was for Lugosi, who turned 60 during the film's production, to take on the part that he once was slated to originate.
The original script — and indeed the film as originally filmed — had the Monster performing dialogue throughout the film, including references to the events of Ghost and indicating that the Monster is now blind (a side effect of the brain transplant as revealed at the end of the previous film, and the reason for his iconic stiff-armed "Frankenstein walk"). According to Siodmak, a studio screening audience reacted negatively to this, finding the idea of the Monster speaking with a Hungarian accent unintentionally funny (although the Monster spoke with Lugosi's voice at the end of Ghost, the audiences had been carefully prepared for it by the plot of the film). This has been generally accepted as the reason virtually all scenes in which Lugosi speaks were deleted (though two brief scenes remain in the film that show Lugosi's mouth moving without sound). All references to his being blind were also eliminated, rendering the Monster's groping gestures unmotivated for those unfamiliar with the ending of the previous film. Close-ups of Lugosi's eyes during the revitalization scene and his evil, knowing leer to Patric Knowles were supposed to indicate that his vision had been restored, but in the ultimate context of the film this means nothing. Consequently, Lugosi is onscreen literally for only a few minutes, leaving the Wolf Man as the film's primary focus.
Lugosi suffered exhaustion at some point during the filming, and his absence from the set, combined with his physical limitations at age 60, required the liberal use of stand-ins.
This would be the final Universal horror film in which the Monster played a major role; in the subsequent films The House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula, the Monster, played by Glenn Strange, is brought back to life only in the final scenes (in the 1948 Universal comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (the second and final film in which Lugosi plays Dracula), Strange has a larger role and the creature once again speaks, albeit with very limited dialogue, twice muttering, "Yes, Master."). It was also the last Universal horror film to feature an actual member of the Frankenstein family as a character.
A tribute to this meeting of two horror film legends happens near the beginning of the film Alien vs. Predator, when this film is seen playing on a television at the satellite receiving station. In the US version of the 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla (another pairing of prominent monsters), the music from the fight scene at the end of the film also plays during the final fight between Godzilla and Kong.
So the reason why this movie was a huge disappointments that it was universal first ensemble. A meet between two iconic monsters and boy did it disappointment. Their didnt meet until the last 5 minutes, no scratch that the last minute. Yes you read that right, the last minute their meet. Huge disappointment. It was also slow. I dont recordmend watching this one and skip it. The only reason im giving it a 5 is because of Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
10 years in the making
A film adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly successful Dark Tower novels has been rumoured for over a decade. In 2007, J.J. Abrams was attached to direct the film but dropped out in December 2009.
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Have they made a TV series out of this yet? If not, why not? Secret Life Of Pets would be amazingly suited to being a TV series. While the whole film is quite entertaining, there's no denying that the little "intro" bits where we see the pets at home or get little skits outside the main storyline are the best bits. If anyone remembers Garfield & Friends, that's the format I could see it working in. As it is, Secret Life Of Pets 2 is a film of three parts... but not the beginning/middle/end type. We've got three individual storylines that do at least sort of meet up at the end.
There were a lot of teaser trailers for this and sadly it meant a lot of the scenes were pre-seen in some way, shape or form. I was surprised that none of them had any extra footage that was held back. I loved the vet clip and cat training montage, but there wasn't a single new moment to make them even better.
These two scenes in particular stuck out for another reason, they really highlighted the music. It's fun and a little jazzy, but it's also slightly too loud when combined with the speech which means it doesn't feel like it's in the background anymore.
The film starts out with Max getting used to the fact that there's now a child in his home. Initially he's apprehensive but soon he warms to Liam and goes out of his way to protect him from the dangers of the world. His hypersensitivity to everything has made him nervous and he needs to overcome this if he's going to deal with Liam going to pre-school.
Meanwhile, Captain Snowball is involved in his first case, a kitten that's been catnapped... well, a white tiger who has been chained and tormented by a circus. Snowball and Daisy must execute the perfect heist and free Hu from the evil Sergei's clutches.
Our third storyline doesn't fit in with the other two so well but it's possibly my favourite. Max has asked Gidget to look after his favourite toy and in a terrible accident it bounces out of her window and ends up landing in a neighbour's front room. That neighbour is definitely a cat person. Gidget must enlist the help of Chloe to learn how to be a cat so she can infiltrate her home and rescue the toy. This leads to my favourite scene in the whole film. Plan B has to be the best plan anyone has ever come up with, and Gidget really does deserve the admiration for it.
Secret Life Of Pets 2 is another amusing addition to the Illumination catalogue, and it's certainly not the worst. I've seen it twice and it's entertaining enough to watch more than once (although probably not as close together as I saw it). There are enough moments to keep everyone engaged, there are worse ways to spend some time.
What you should do
I think this will be a good option for a family outing, well worth seeing and it seems to be particularly popular with the kids.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I think I'd want Chloe, even though I'm a bit of a dog person.
There were a lot of teaser trailers for this and sadly it meant a lot of the scenes were pre-seen in some way, shape or form. I was surprised that none of them had any extra footage that was held back. I loved the vet clip and cat training montage, but there wasn't a single new moment to make them even better.
These two scenes in particular stuck out for another reason, they really highlighted the music. It's fun and a little jazzy, but it's also slightly too loud when combined with the speech which means it doesn't feel like it's in the background anymore.
The film starts out with Max getting used to the fact that there's now a child in his home. Initially he's apprehensive but soon he warms to Liam and goes out of his way to protect him from the dangers of the world. His hypersensitivity to everything has made him nervous and he needs to overcome this if he's going to deal with Liam going to pre-school.
Meanwhile, Captain Snowball is involved in his first case, a kitten that's been catnapped... well, a white tiger who has been chained and tormented by a circus. Snowball and Daisy must execute the perfect heist and free Hu from the evil Sergei's clutches.
Our third storyline doesn't fit in with the other two so well but it's possibly my favourite. Max has asked Gidget to look after his favourite toy and in a terrible accident it bounces out of her window and ends up landing in a neighbour's front room. That neighbour is definitely a cat person. Gidget must enlist the help of Chloe to learn how to be a cat so she can infiltrate her home and rescue the toy. This leads to my favourite scene in the whole film. Plan B has to be the best plan anyone has ever come up with, and Gidget really does deserve the admiration for it.
Secret Life Of Pets 2 is another amusing addition to the Illumination catalogue, and it's certainly not the worst. I've seen it twice and it's entertaining enough to watch more than once (although probably not as close together as I saw it). There are enough moments to keep everyone engaged, there are worse ways to spend some time.
What you should do
I think this will be a good option for a family outing, well worth seeing and it seems to be particularly popular with the kids.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I think I'd want Chloe, even though I'm a bit of a dog person.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Superheroes and villains are a subject close to my heart, I enjoy speculating on the good and bad potential of superpowers, so to have the bad Superman story laid out like this is very interesting to experience.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Having a bad Superman would have been good, but switching it to a child automatically knocks the "scary" up a notch, something we saw earlier in the year in The Prodigy.
Tori and Kyle Breyer are desperately trying to have a baby, their lives start to revolve around the idea when one night the Earth literally moves for them and a meteor hits their farm. Ten years later and Tori and Kyle have their adopted son, Brandon, but growing up comes with some unexpected twists.
Brightburn's trailer makes it very clear that what we're going to see is a Superman-style childhood but the film is actually not so blatant. In fact, everything about the pre-release information tells you exactly what you're going to get while the film alone actually leaves it to your imagination. You have to make assumptions and educated guesses about what's going to happen. It's a bit of a shame that there's really no successful way to advertise this film without pointing out the obvious.
Elizabeth Banks (eternally young and possibly getting younger) plays Tori, Brandon's mum. The terror she gets across while still retaining a mother's love is spot on and great to watch on screen. In particular there's a scene where she discovers Brandon's notebook and the way she reacts made me react, and twisting that scene with the side story of Brandon and his dad was so effective.
I have one fault when it comes to horror, and that's that I can't take it seriously, luckily lots of people in my screening felt the same way too. While there were a couple of moments that went for actual humour I found myself laughing at some of the gore too. It was the same reaction as I get from extreme action scenes, an extended "oooooooh!" with a slight wince and then laughing. I can't help it, it's just funny.
Brightburn is probably an easier horror to see as the scary moments are mostly predictable so you could close your eyes in time for the bad bits if you wanted too, a lot are prefixed with something ominous in the background to prepare you.
One moment that made me jump was actually not a scary piece, it was the moment Brandon realises he's different. You already know part of his discovery if you've seen the trailer and yet again this film then tweaks that moment to give you something a little different.
The way they use light and dark is great because it allows things to creep up on you, quite literally, and highlights the evil that is starting to permeate the town.
It surprises me that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. I think the action moments probably holds up a lot of it. I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that it was created as well as it could have been. I was impressed that they didn't step back from the violent moments though, Brightburn is ballsy, and I like it for that.
[Note: Stay to see some clips into the credits.]
What you should do
If you like horror then I think it's a fairly good offering to see, it's probably also a good crossover if you're more into superheroes.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd love the aunt's house but without the creepy added extras.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)